'^ 


>^^-; 


1  ll. 

I*r<>i>t'i 

ol     TIIK 

ty 

IffiPHIT 

PflHTTir 

GlTllllST 

3 

ZizmTs: 

BARTON 

SQUARE, 

SALEM. 

DEPOSITED 


IS    nil-  — 


Ll  BR  ART 


ESSEX    INSTITDTE. 


AN  INQUIRY 


ISTO    THE    RIGHT    TO    CHANGE    THE 


ECCLESIASTICAL    CONSTITUTIOIV 


CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES 


OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 


WITH    A    PREFACE,     ADDRESSED     TO    THE     REV.    JOSEPH    LYMAN,    D,    D. 

CNDER    THE    SANCTION    OF    WHOSE    NAME    SPCH    A    CHANGE    HAS 

BEEN   PROPOSED    TO    THE    PEOPLE    OF    THIS    STATE, 


TO    WHICH    IS    PRKFIXED, 

Dr,  Morse's  Report  to  the  General  Association  of  MassachiSsettf,  from  the 
Panoplist  of  August,  1815. 


BOSTON  : 

rmNT£D    AND    PUBLISHED    BY    WEILS    AND    L1LV.V. 

1816. 


From  the  Panoplist,  August,  1815.  Volume  eleventh,  p.  357. 
RELIGIOUS  INTELLIGENCE. 

KXTR.VCTS  FROM  THB  MINUTES  OF  THE  GENERAL  ASSOCIATION  OF  M ASS ACHUSF.TTS 
PROPKn,  HOtOEN  AT  ROYALSTON,  ON  THE  FOURTH  TUESDAY,  VIZ.  THE  27TH  DAY 
OF  JUNE,  A.  D.  1815,  AND  CONTINUED  BY  ADJOURNMENT  T0  THE  29tH  OF  THE 
SAME    MONTH. 

The  Rev.  Joseph  Lyman,  D.D.  was  chosfcn  Moderator,  and  the  Rev.  James  Mur- 
dock,  and  the  Rf.v.  John  Codman,  were  chosen  Scribes. 

The  members  next  presented  their  credentials. 

Thursday  morning,  June  29th,  8  A.M.  met  according  to  adjournment.  After 
prayer  took  up  the  business  assigned  to  this  hour. 

Voted,  to  go  into  a  free  discussion  of  the  subject  of  the  following  motion  :  "  That 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  appointed  to  inquire  intotlie  history  of  an  original  MS. 
Document,  &c.  be  printed,  and  copies  sent  to  the  several  Associations  in  our  connex- 
ion, for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  puhlick  sentiments  raepecting  the  plan  of  ec- 
clesiastical order  tlierein  presented,  and  that  the  subject  be  called  up  at  the  next 
meeting  of  the  General  Association."  After  the  discussion,  the  motion  was  passed 
into  a  voie,  and  VIessrs.  Morse,  Codman  and  Woods,  appointed  a  Committee  for 
publishing  the  above  mentioned  Report,  with  instructions  to  print  it  in  connexion 
with  the  preceding  vote. 

REPORT    TO    GENERAL    ASSOCIATION. 

The  Committee  of  the  General  Association  of  Massachusetts  Proper, 
appointed  at  their  last  annual  meeting  at  Dorchester,  "to  inquire 
into  the  history  of  an  original  MS.  document,*  foimd  among  the 
papers  of  Rev.  Dr.  Cotton  Mather,  containing  an  answer  to 
the  question,  '  What  further  steps  are  to  be  taken,  that  Councils 
may  have  their  due  constitution  and  efficacy  in  supporting,  pre- 
serving, and  well  ordering,  the  interest  of  the  Churches  in  the  coun- 
try ?'  And  '  particularly  to  ascertain,  whether  the  resolves  it  con- 
tains were  carried  into  execution  at  the  time,  and  to  what  e.vtent  ; 
and  to  report  at  the  next  annual  meeting  of  this  Association,  on  the 
expediency  of  a  recommendation  of  this  body,  of  the  plan  of  disci- 
pline there  proposed,  either  entire,  or  with  alterations  and  amend- 
ments, to  the  consideration  of  the  Associations  and  churches  in  our 
connexion,'  " — have  attended  deliberately  and  prayerfully  to  the 
weighty  and  very  important  business  committed  to  them,  and  re- 
spectfully submit  the  Ibllowing 

REPORT. 

1  HE  history  of  the  Document  aboved  escribed,  other  than  what  i» 
contained  in  the  published  minutes  of  the  last  iueetiug  of  the  General 
Association,!  so  far  as  your  Committee  have  been  able  to  ascertain  it,  is 
lummarily  as  follows  :  Shortly  after  it  had  received  the  sanciion  of 
the  Convention  of  Ministers  in  Massachusetts  at  their  annual  meciing 
iu  May,  1706,  this  Document  was  published  by  the  Her.  John  Wisb, 

*  This  Document  may  be  found  in  the  Panoplist  for  July  1814,  p.  320. 
t  See  Panoplist  before  quoted. 


4 

of  Ipswich,  in  a  work  entitled  "  The  Ckiirches^  Quarrel  Espousei^.'^ 
The  sis^natures,  and  the  fact  that  the  Proposals  receiv  d  t!ie  approba- 
tion of  the  Convention  of  Ministers,  were  omitted  by  Mr.  Wise,  in  his 
pn))lication,  and  appeared  in  print  Tor  the  first  time,  in  the  Minntes  of 
this  Association. 

The  Proposals  embraced  under  thefirst  Division,  recommending  the 
formation  of  Associations,  and  suais^esMng  their  appropriate  duties,  it 
appears  were  so  fur  regarded,  as  that  twenty  years  after,  "  the  country 
was  full  of  Associations,  formed  by  the  pastors  in  their  several  vicini- 
ties, for  the  prosecution  of  evangelicaF  purposes.'"*  The  Proposals 
under  the  second  Division,  recommending  the  Cnnsnciuiiov  of  the  pas- 
tors and  Churches,  and  forming  them  into  standing  ecclesiastical  Coun- 
cils, for  certain  purposes  t' erein  stated,  were  (as  Dr.  C.  Mather  in- 
forms us,  in  his  P.atio  Disciplina;,  published  in  1726)  substantially 
adopted,  at  the  time,  in  Connecticut,  and  have  ever  since  formed  the 
basis  of  their  ecclesiastical  proceedings.  In  Massachusetts  the  same 
writer  states,  that  "  there  were  some  very  considerable  persons  among 
the  ministers,  as  well  as  of  the  brethren,  who  thought  the  liberties  of 
particular  Churches  to  be  in  danger  of  being  liviUed  and  ivfringed  in 
them.  In  deference  to  these,  (he  adds)  the  proposals  were  never  pro- 
.seciited  beyond  the  bounds  of  mere  proposals."} 

Your  Committee,  in  this  place,  take  leave,  in  ftilfi'ment  of  a  part  of 
tlie  duty  assigned  them,  to  state,  that  the  Proposals  last  alluded  to 
are,  in  various  respects  such,  that  in  their  op  nion  coiigreg.-vtional  min- 
isters cannot  consistently  recommend  or  approve  them.  They  forbear  to 
enlarge  on  this  subject,  and  beg  leave  to  refer  to  the  plan  submitted  at 
the  close  of  this  report,  as  containing  the  deliberate  views  of  the 
Committee. 

Further  light,  your  Committee  conceive,  may  be  thrown  on  the  his- 
tory of  the  Document  in  question,  by  a  recurrence  to  its  origin  and 
design ,  which  may  be  inferred  from  its  introductory  sentence — "  To 
serve  the  great  intentions  of  Religion,  which  is  lamentably  decaying  in 
the  country."  Viewing,  as  it  appears  they  did,  with  deep  concern,  a 
visibk;  decline  in  the  order,  discipline,  purity,  and  fruitfulness  of  the 
Churches,  the  body  of  the  Clergy  of  that  day,  devised  the  means  sug- 
gested in  the  Proposals  in  question,  as  the  best  remedy  against  existing 
evils.  The  principal  cause,  of  this  lamentable  decay  of  religion,  in 
the  view  of  the  fraaiers  of  these  Proposals,  may  be  inferred  from  the 
remedies  which  they  propose  for  their  removal ;  and  from'  a  paper 
anncxed'to  this  report,  published  about  the  year  1700. J  Among  the 
most  operative  of  these  causes  appear  to  have  been  laxness  in  disci- 
pline, and  a  growing  defect  in  the  fellowship,  union  and  co-operation 
among  the  Churches  and  their  pastors. ^  These  radical  evils,  which 
generated  many  others,  had  been  gradually  increasing  for  about  half  a 

*  Ratio  Disciplinae,  p.  181.  f  "I'd-  P-  184. 

\  See  this  Piipcr  entitled,  "  More  particnlvir  prognostications  upon  the  fiidire  state 
of  A^eJii-£7iffZ«»(/,"  in  tlie  Pa7w;)/i5<,  for  July  I8I4,  p.  324.  It  is  referred  to  the 
reader's  particular  attention. 

5  One  of  tlie  evils  complained  of,  and  which  prompted  the  movers  of  the  measures 
proposed  in  the  document  under  consideration,  is  thus  stated  :  "  When  Councils  are 
call^^d  by  lilis'int  •partira  in  churches,  upon  emergencies,  it  had  been  hitlierto  in  the 
liberty  of  each  party,  to  choose  and  call  their  own  councils,  wliere  they  pleased  j 
■which  left  room  lor  much  partiality  to  operate,  and  one  Council  to  succeed  and  op- 


ceotuiy  after  the  Platform  of  the  New-England  Churches  had  been 
adopted  at  Cambridge.  Fifty  years  experience  had  taught  discerning 
men,  both  of  the  laity  and  clergy,  that  some  further  measures  were  ne- 
cessary to  carry  into  full  effect  some  of  the  salutary  provisions  of  that 
Instrument;  those  particularly  which  were  designed  to  regulate  the 
fellowship  and  discipline  of  the  churches.  Other  provisions  relating  to 
the  introduction,  discipline,  and  dismission  of  ministers,  were  found  in- 
expedient in  practice,  and  of  course  fell  into  disuse.  In  managing  these 
important  ecclesiastical  concerns,  so  intimately  connected  wiih  the  gen- 
eral welfare  of  religion,  the  Churchei*  were  left,  each  to  its  own  discrecion, 
without  any  generally  acknowledged  uniform  rule  to  govern  them  ;  and 
the  Platform,  thus  disregarded  in  some  oi'its  essential  provisions,  gradu- 
ally ceased  to  be  a  guide  of  discipline,  and  a  bondof  union  in  the  Church- 
es. That  fellowsiiip.  mutual  affection,  and  care  ;  that  agreement  in  the 
fundamental  articles  of  the  Christian  faith,  which,  from  the  first  plant- 
ing of  these  churches  had  happily  subsisted  among  them,  cemented 
their  union,  and  produced  the  best  effects,  after  the  lapse  of  a  half  a 
century,  began  visibly  to  decline.  The  wise  and  pious  among  the 
watchmen,  perceiving  these  things,  were  justly  alarmed  at  the  inevita- 
ble conSv="quences,  and  felt  it  to  be  an  imperious  duty  to  exert  their 
best  efforts  to  stay  these  evils,  by  strengthening  the  things  which  re- 
mained, and  which  were  ready  to  die. 

It  was  in  this  state  of  the  churches,  and  on  a  deliberate  view  of  these 
evils,  that  the  Proposals  in  question,  were  devised,  and  on  due  consi- 
deration, adopted  by  the  Convention  of  the  clergy. 

Your  Committee  have  not  sufficient  facts  in  their  possession  deter- 
minately  to  state  the  various  causes  which  operated  to  prevent  these 
Proposals  from  going  into  effect.  Their  form  was  not  the  most  unex- 
ceptionable, and  hence  was  afforded  advantage  to  opposers.  The 
Consociation  of  Churches,  though  not  precisely  in  the  manner  delinea- 
ted in  these  Proposals,  was  not  new  to  Christians  in  New-England. 
They  well  knew,  that  the  primitive  churches  in  the  three  first  centu- 
ries, were  in  fact,  if  not  in  form,  consociated.  The  principles  of  Con- 
sociation were  recognised,  in  the  Platform,  and  in  their  deliberate 
judgmeat  were  supported  by  tlie  word  of  God. 

In  1716,  Dr.  Increase  Mather  published  his  "Disquisition  concern- 
ing Ecclesiastical  Coimcils."  It  does  not  appear  that  he  approved 
these  proposals.  Yet  so  far  was  he,  from  being  '*  disaffected  to  the 
Consociatinn  of  Churches,  in  order  to  the  preservation  of  the  faith  and 
order  of  the  gospel"  among  them,  that,  he  expressly  declares,  he  con- 
siders such  a  measure  '•  not  only  lawful,  but  ab^rAxUdy  necessary  for  the 
establishment  of  the  churches" — that  "  light  of  natural  reason,  as  well 
as  scripture,  teaches  churches  iu  common  with  otlier  societies,  to  asso- 
ciate and  combine  for  their  common  safety" — that,  "this  was  prac- 
tised in  the  primitive  times  of  Christianity,  and  by  most  of  the  re- 
formed churches,  at  that  time  existing  in  Europe" — and  that  "  a  due 
attendance  to  the  communion  and  consociation  of  churches,  will,  by 
the  blessing  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  be  a  good  means  to  prevent  de- 
generacy and  to  establish  them  in  that  holy  faith  and  order  of  the  gos- 
pel which  has  been  professed  and  practised  among  them  j    and  bv 

pose  another  with  an  endless  confusion,  more  proper  for  a  Bubel  than  a  rUy  nf  Cod.'" 
It  was  hence  "thought  ihat prudence  called  for  a  more  effectual  provii,ion."* 

•  Jiatio  Disci aUnac,  p.lS3. 


& 

which  the  religious  people  in  New-England  have  been  distinguished." 
— He  concludes  by  recommending  the  Consociation  of  Chiirclies.  in  the 
form  submitted  by  your  Committee,  at  the  cJose  of  tJiis  Heport,  as  his 
"dying  farewell  to  the  churches  in  New-England.  So  mill  Aen-Eng- 
land  remain  JVeiv- Engl  and." 

The  consequences  of  disrciarding  this  sound  advice,  have  been  wit- 
uessed  in  the  stale  of  the  churches  in  i\iassac!iusetts  for  a  century 
past,  and  are  apparent  in  their  present  state.  No  man  can  survey  tlie 
Christian  ministry  and  churches  in  this  Commonwealth,  wiiiiont  dvep 
s<dicitude  and  grief.  Comparing  our  religious  slaie  with  the  standard 
set  before  u.s  in  the  word  of  God,  or  in  the  example  of  the  early 
churches  of  New-England,  we  can  hardly  refrain  from  exclaiming, 
"  How  is  the  gold  become  dim  !"  Doubtless  the  grand  cause  of  the 
disordered  si  ate  of  the  churches  is,  generally  speaking,  the  want  of 
growins;  personal  holiness. 

Your  Committee  consider  it  their  special  duty  to  call  the  attention 
of  the  General  Association  to  (kose  evils  in  our  ecclesiastical  state,  nkicli 
affect  ckurckes  and  ministers  in  their  publick  character  and  in  their  re- 
laiinn  to  each  other. 

That  churches  and  pastors  of  churches  do  in  fact  sustain  an  import- 
ant relation  to  each  other,  and  also  what  Hie  nature  oi'  that  relation 
is,  must  be  clear  to  every  man.  who  duly  considers,  that  they  are  all 
memljers  of  one  kingdom,  and  subject  to  the  authority  of  one  King; 
that  they  are  ail  partakers  of  one  ^^pirit,  and  enl  sled  into  one  and  the 
same  cause  ;  and  that  they  are  frequently  called,  in  discharge  of  their 
duty,  to  promote  a  common  interest.  The  relation  existing  among 
churches  and  ministers  was  constituted  by  God  himself,  and  cannot  be 
set  aside,  without  opposing  divine  wisdom,  and  taking  away  the  very 
foundation  of  christian  society. 

The  principle  o\  ministerial  and  church  fellomship  must  be  consider- 
ed as  of  prime  consequence,  and  it  is  obviously  from  a  growing  disre- 
gard of  this  principle,  that  the  various  evils,  of  which  we  complain, 
have  resulted, — not  that  the  principle  of  fellowship  has  been  openly 
disavowed  ;  for  it  is  expressly  recognised  in  our  Platform,  and  would 
certainly  have  been  more  largely  insisted  upon  and  more  clearly  de- 
fined, had  there  been  the  same  occasion  for  it.  that  there  is  now.  This 
principle  is  also  tacitly  allowed  in  many  of  ou  ecclesiastical  proceed- 
ings. But  it  is,  to  a  great  extent,  practically  disregarded.  It  is  not 
generally  understood  what  the  fellowship  of  ministers  and  churches  is, 
or  what  are  the  reciprocal  rights  and  obligations  implied  in  it.  These 
rights  and  obligations  are  no  where  clearly  explained,  and  by  men 
seriously  contemplated.  Indeed,  with  the  exception  of  a  i'ew  things 
which  occasionally  occur,  and  which  appear  like  remaining  fragments 
of  a  system  once  in  existence,  the  sacred  principle  of  fellowship  among 
the  cliurclies  is  overlooked  and  forgotten. 

But  there  are  several  particular  evils  in  the  present  state  of  our 
ecclesiastical  affairs,  which  demand  distinct  consideration. 

Tiic,/frs,  is,  a  prevuiling  neglect  of  discipline  towards  offending  mem- 
hen,  of  churches,  and  the  difficulty  ctf  going  through  a  regular  course  of 
dirriplinc,  7vhfn  attempted. 

The  priufipal  thing  which  we  shall  state,  as  having  a  tendency  to 
increase  and  perpetuate  this  evil,  is  the  abandonment  of  the  sacred  prin- 
ciple of  fellowship  among  the  churches.     In  maiutaiuing  tiaitldiil  disci- 


pline  over  its  members,  every  church  needs  the  united  support  of 
other  churches.  Their  relation  to  the  individual  churcli  oa^';t  m  this 
case  to  be  perfectly  visible,  and  their  det«'rmination  and  inducnce  in 
favour  of  strict  discipline  to  be  known  and  felt  by  all.  Were  it  so, 
the offt^nder,  who  mij^lit  b-?  disposed  to  be  discontented  and  refractory, 
seeing  that  he  could  obtain  no  countenance  from  abroati,  would  i;nd  it 
necessary  to  submit ;  and  thus,  in  a  muititude  of  cases,  difficulty 
would  be  prevented  and  church  order  establi.^ied. 

But  in  the  preNent  disjointed  state  of  things,  an  offender,  who  grows 
irapa;  lent  of  restraint,  and  desirous  to  get  rid  of  wholesome  discipline, 
is  able  to  obtain,  from  some  quarter,  the  support  he  wishes,  and  thus 
entirely  to  elude  the  authority  of  the  church,  or  to  create  endless  diffi- 
culty and  disorder. 

The  abandonment  of  the  principle  of  fellowship  among  the  churches 
has  promoted  the  evil  abovementioned,  by  preventing  a  grneral  agree- 
ment in  the  mode  of  discipline.  At  present  there  is  no  uniform  system 
of  rules  to  govern  the  conduct  of  churches.  The  Cambridge  Platform, 
though  an  able  and  useful  treatise,  is  not  adopted  and  used  as  a  manual 
of  discipline  in  our  churches.  Indeed,  though  we  should  be  among  the 
first  to  plead  for  the  general  soundness  of  the  princples  contained  in  the 
Platform,  we  doubt  whether  those  principles  are  exhibited  in  so  precise 
and  particular  a  manner,  as  the  present  state  of  things  would  require. 
Let  the  churches  then,  in  the  exercise  of  their  own  rights^  carefully 
survey  their  disordered  and  exposed  condition.  Let  them  deliberate  ; 
let  them  consult;  and  upon  the  scriptural  principles  laid  down  in  our 
Platform,  let  them  agree  to  adopt  a  uniform  system  of  rules  for  the 
regulation  of  church  discipline. 

Such  a  course  as  we  have  taken  the  liberty  to  suggest  has  often  been 
pursued  in  civil  affaire.  The  growing  experience  of  states  and  nations 
has  showed  the  necessity  of  erecting  upon  the  basis  of  the  Constitution 
first  adopted  a  more  perfect  scheme  of  government, — of  stating  more 
explicitly  what  was  in  any  measure  equivocal, — of  correcting  new  con- 
structions,— of  multiplying  statutes  suited  to  new  exigencies, — and  es- 
pecially of  pursuing  measures,  before  anthoughtof,  to  carry  into  effect 
original  provision-;. 

Whatever  may  be  said  in  commendation  of  the  Platform,  it  has  long 
since  ceased  to  be  of  general  practical  use.  Its  provisions  are  not  car- 
ried into  effect.  By  our  churches  at  large,  it  is  not  regarded  as  of  any 
vonsideralion.  It  is  then  perfectly  evident,  that  there  is  no  agreement 
among  our  churches  in  a  svstem  of  discipline. 

The  want  of  such  agreement  in  a  system  of  discipline  has  been  the 
natural  consequence  of  our  al»andouiiig  the  general  principle  of  fellow- 
ship among  the  churches  ;  and  has  contributed  nuich  to  the  prostration 
of  christian  order  and  government.  JVIany  members  of  churches,  and 
some  pastors  of  but  little  experience,  are  doubtful  what  to  do.  And  if 
they  ven'ure  to  act,  they  a  e  in  danger  of  taking  a  course,  whicli  wiii 
give  great  advantage  to  deliuquents,  and  impede  the  efficacy  of  the 
juost  faithful  exertions. 

Secondl,]/.  In  the  present  state  of  things,  there  is  no  regular  and  ac- 
knoivhilgtd  method  in  nhich  congregational  chv.rckes  can  e::erc;se  a  chris- 
tian wafrh  and  care  over  each  of  her.  A  church,  as  well  as  an  indiviflual 
memb>;r.  may  apostatize  from  the  common  faith,  and  lal!  into  disor- 
ders totally  incompatible  with  the  christian  character.     If  such  be  the 


8 

fact  with  anj  church,  can  other  churches  in  fellowship  be  indifferent  ? — 
But  what  shall  thej' do  ? — If,  without  seeing  evidence  of  repentance, 
they  continue  their  fellowship,  they  give  countenance  to  disorder.  On 
the  other  hand,  if,  before  investigating  the  grounds  of  dissatisfaction 
and  taking  proper  measures  to  reclaim  the  ofitnding  church,  they  with- 
hold communion,  they  offer  violence  to  the  common  principles  of  fel- 
lowship and  decorum.  Clearly,  nothing  can  with  propriety  be  done, 
without  an  investigation.  It  is  the  duty  of  a  church,  in  every  such  case, 
to  submit  to  an  investigation,  and  be  ready  to  give  reasonable  satisfac- 
tion. A  rcJusai  to  do  this  would  be  to  renounce  all  fellowship.  But 
what  churcii  in  Massaclnisetts  now  practically  claims  the  right  to  ask, 
or  recognizes  the  obligation  to  give  satisfaction.  So  distracted  is  the 
state  of  our  ecc!esi^^stica!  affairs,  and  so  vague,  and  loose,  and  weak  the 
princijde  of  union,  that  churches  in  our  fellowship  may  go  to  the  great- 
est length  of  apostasy,  without  any  inspection,  and  without  losing 
that  indefinite  fellowship  with  us,  which  they  before  enjoyed. 

Is  it  said,  that  an  apostate  church  does  expose  itself  to  animadver- 
sion, and  ought  to  be  treated  accordingly  ?  Granted.  But  vpon  nhat 
principl';?  aM  according  to  what  acknowledged  rule?  In  the  present  pos- 
ture of  our  ecclesiastical  affairs,  there  can  be  no  regular  investigation 
of  (he  case.  Have  we  then  a  right  to  withhold  fellowship  from  a  church 
at  our  option,  by  a  sovereign  vote,  and  thus,  perhaps  without  just  cause, 
to  wound  its  sensibilities  and  stigmatize  its  reputation?  VA'hat  a  bane- 
ful influence  would  such  a  principle  have  ?  What  ecclesiastical  despo- 
tism and  anarchy  would  it  introduce  ? 

Nothing  seems  calculated  to  secure  ns  against  these  difficulties,  but 
an  e.j:plicit  acknowledgment  of  mutual  responsibility  among  the  churches, 
and  a  definite  statement,  in  which  all  churches  in  fellowship  with  each 
other  shall  agree,  of  their  reciprocal  rights  and  obligations,  and  of  the 
exact  manner  in  which  thofe  rights  shall  be  eaercised  and  those  obliga- 
tions  fulfilled.  But  at  present,  there  is  no  explicit  ackn  -wledgment 
of  mutual  responsibility,  and  no  definite,  intelligible  statement  of  re- 
cipr«cal  rights  and  duties,  or  of  the  method  of  intercourse.  Here,  as 
in  the  case  aborementioned,  the  Platform,  which  plainly  exhibits  the 
general  duty  of  fellowship  among  the  churches,  is  neither  consulted 
nor  acknowledged. 

At  the  same  time,  the  avowed  sentimonts  of  some,  and  the  practical 
sentiments  of  many  are  such,  as  to  exempt  churches  from  all  mutual  in- 
spection, and  yet  require  us  to  have  fellowship  with  all  churches,  call- 
ing themselves  Congregational,  whatever  be  their  faith  or  conduct.  And 
what  is  still  more  insufferable,  we  are  under  a  kind  of  necessity  of  al- 
lowing our  disorderly  members  to  call  in  churches,  the  most  defective 
in  christian  character,  to  censure  our  principles,  to  overturn  our  inter- 
nal discipline,  to  sanction  disorder  and  heresy,  and  to  attack  the  repu- 
tation of  faithful  ministers. 

These  considerations  clearly  show  that  the  principles  of  fellowship 
among  the  churches  which  are  laid  down  in  our  Platform,  are  of  vast 
importance,  and  must  be  carried  into  effect,  before  peace  and  pros- 
perity can  be  found  in  our  Zion.  But  there  is  no  prospect  of  carrying 
those  principles  into  effect  without  a  great  and  united  efjbrt.  The 
churches  n:;>st  deliberate,  and  act.  On" the  basis  of  the  principles  as- 
serted in  tlie  Platform,  let  them  jointly  settle  a  plan  that  shall  be  regu- 
lar and  practicable,  of  ascertaining  the  character  of  those  churches  with 


which  we  are  to  be  coiiriected,  of  avoiding  those  which  are  coriiipt,  and. 
ot'coiius2llina;and  adinonishino;  sister  churches  as  occasion  may  require. 
Tkir.Ui/.  Tliere  is  one  more  evil  in  our  ecclesiastical  affairs,  wiiich 
we  think  it  necessary  distinctly  to  notice,  that  is,  the  want  of  a  settled 
and  effectual  method  of  calling  ministers  to  account  for  immorality  and 
errour,  and  of  protecting  them  against  calumny  and  injustice.  There  is 
no  reason  why  a  minister  should  not  be  as  subject  to  inspection  as  a  pri- 
vate christian.  Nay,  the  publicity  and  importance  of  his  office,  furnish 
special  reasons,  why  he  should  enjoy  the  advantage  of  the  most  vigilant 
and  faithful  inspe.'tion.  The  body  of  men,  who  are  to  exercise  this  in- 
spection, siiould  be  well  known,  their  rights  and  duties  well  defined, 
and  every  thing  relative  to  the  modo  of  proceeding  be,  by  commou 
a«;reera«nt,  fully  dstermined.  Tiie  venerable  authors  of  the  Platform 
provided,  though  in  terms  not  sufficiently  definite  for  present  use,  for 
calling  ministers  to  account  before  an  ecclesiastical  Council  ;  and  vari- 
ous publick  documents  show,  that  they  themselves  and  other  men  of 
like  spirit  began  soon  after  to  feel  th-^  necessity  of  further  and  more 
effectual  provisions,  and  proceeded  distinctly  to  propose  them.  But 
the  provisions  oi  the  Platform,  and  those  afterwai-ds  proposed  are  disre- 
garded, and  by  most  men  forgotten. 

The  defects  of  the  system  which  actually  prevails  relative  to  the  dis- 
cipline of  ministers  are  too  palpable  to  escape  notice,  or  to  need  parti- 
cular explanation.  We  have,  in  the  first  place,  no  effectual  moans  of 
keeping  corrupt  or  iniompetent  men  from  entering  into  the  ministry 
and  obtaining  ordination.  Suppose  the  friends  of  ecclesiastical  order 
are  sometimes  admitted  to  a  place  in  ordaining  councils.  Wliai.  influ- 
ence can  they  have,  w.'ien  tht=re  is  a  majority  in  number,  determined  to 
outvote  tlieni  ?  The  rights  of  conscience,  which  they  think  it  their  duty 
to  exercise,  are  assaulted,  and  they  are,  of  a  truth,  expected  to  take  it 
for  granted,  as  a  self-evident  proposition,  tliat  the  candidate  for  the  sa- 
cred office  is  well  qfialitied,  and  to  give  their  voice  for  his  ordination, 
without  being  indulged  with  an  opportunity  even  oi'  seeking  satisfaction 
as  to  his  fitness  for  the  work. 

After  a  man  is  once  ordained,  by  whomsoever,  and  by  what  means  so- 
ever it  may  have  been  done,  we  are  ail  required  to  acknowledge  and 
treat  him  as  a  minister  of  the  gospel.  If  we  are  stationed  in  his  vicini- 
ty, we  are  exposed  to  special  difficulty.  For  while  we  are  deprived  of 
any  influence  in  his  settlement,  and  are  utterly  unable  in  any  way  to 
impoach  his  character,  or  bring  hiin  to  trial  for  any  fault,  however 
flagrant,  we  are,  ac  ording  to  common  expectation,  to  have  fellowship 
with  him  more  frequently  and  in  a  higher  degree,  than  others.  Things 
proceeding  in  this  way,  a  corrupt  church  with  an  heretical  minister,  has 
opportunity  to  exert  a  corrupting  influence  upon  the  wliole  body  of 
Congregational  churches.  The  great  evil  here  complained  of  is  at 
present  protected,  and  suffei'ed  to  spread,  without  any  effort  for  its 
cure. 

Heretofore  it  was  the  opinion  of  some  in  this  Commonwealth,  that  a 
minister  might  be  brought  for  trial  before  his  own  ehnrch.  But  it  is  very 
apparent,  and  is  now  alino.st  universally  conceded  that  a  single  church  is 
not  a  competent  tribunal  for  the  trial  of  a  minister.  This  has  become 
so  extremely  evident,  that  whatever  opinions  may  have  been  entertain- 
ed, no  church  does  really  claim  and  exercise  the  right  of  censuring  a 
pastor.     So  that  we  do  in  fact  find  ourselves  in  this  difficulty,  that  n'c 


10 

have  no  regular,  afknowledged  and  uniform  raethod  of  trying  a  minister 
for  any  violation  of  the  laws  of  Christ. 

.  It  is,  then,  of  the  highest  moment,  that  a  proper  and  effectual  plan 
be  adopted  to  r*2;nlate  our  conduet  in  this  respect.  At  present,  if 
ministers  or  churches  refuse  to  hold  fellowship  with  any  one  invested 
with  the  sacred  office,  however  bad  his  character,  they  must  do  it  on 
their  own  private  responsibility,  and  generally  to  their  own  inconve- 
nience. IVow  for  this  matter  to  be  left  entirely  to  the  discretion  of  in- 
dividuals is  a  great  evil.  For  in  such  a  case,  they  will  be  under  the 
stron2;est  temptations  to  swerve  from  the  path  of  duty.  And  even  if 
they  are  disposed  to  be  faithful,  it  is  probable  that,  by  different  judg- 
ments and  different  measures,  they  will  embarrass  each  other,  and 
increase  the  confusion  of  our  ecclesiastical  concerns. 

It  may  be  supposed,  that  the  want  of  a  regular  tribunal  for  the  trial 
of  a  minister  may  be  supplied,  and  that  most  of  the  evils  above  insisted 
on  may  be  cured,  by  the  provision  nf  mvhial  councils. 

On  this  we  remark,  that  no  objection  in  our  view  can  lie  against  the 
grand  principle  of  mutual  councils.  Of  the  justice  and  iiiiportance  of 
that  principle  we  are  fully  convinced.  And  we  wish  it  to  be  remem- 
bered, that  the  observations  we  are  about  to  make  relate,  not  to  the 
7)ro]jne/j/ of  mutual  councils,  but  merely  to  the  present  mode  of  consti- 
tuting them.  Tlie  result,  to  which  an  attentive  observation  of  facts, 
and  a  careful  inquiry  into  the  nature  of  the  subject  have  conducted  us, 
is  ihi^  ;  viz.  thai  mvtual  councils,  as  theij  arc  now  commonly  constilutedy. 
are,  by  no  means  an  adequate  provision  against  tke  evils  ivhich  urgently, 
sail  for  a  remedy. 

The  general  reasons  of  this  result  are  the  following. 

1.  Mutual  councils,  iti  their  present  form,  are  not  permanent  bodies. 
To-day  they  exist,  and  are  by  the  churches  invested  with  authority ; 
to-morrow,  both  their  authority  and  existence  cease.  Accordingly  it 
is  impossible  for  them  to  exercise  any  stated  and  <)ontinued  inspection 
over  either  ministers  or  churches.  Such  occasional,  transient  bodies, 
however  useful  they  may  sometimes  be  in  composing  particular  dis- 
turbances, can  aflbrd  no  regular  and  permanent  support  to  the  friends 
of  religious  order,  or  do  any  thing  effectually  to  resti-ain  offenders. 

2.  Mv'tual  councils,  in  present  circumstances,  may  be  evaded.  Of- 
fenders may  refuse  to  join  in  the  choice  of  them,  or  to  submit  to  their 
decisions. 

3.  Mutual  councils  have  in  this  Commonwealth  no  code  of  ecclesi- 
astical rules  to  govern  either  their  own  proceedings,  or  the  conduct 
of  eoutendins;  parties  in  managing  their  cause.  Nor  is  it  determined 
among  <»ur  churches  in  what  cases  councils  are  to  be  called,  aor  what 
is  the  extewt  of  their  juris<liction,  or  the  authority  of  their  results. 

4.  Miiiual  O'ln'il^,  on  the  present  oli'i,  nviij  be  mnlUplied  without 
limits.  Difficulties  may  be  so  managed,  that  there  shall  be  no  end 
of  strife. 

An  ex  parte  council,  resorted  to  as  a  substitute  for  a  mutual  council, 
is  still  more  exceptionable.  It  will,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case, 
be  regarded  wiMi  suspicion,  and  can  never  have  the  power  of  termi- 
nating a  contention.  A  second  ex  parte  counail  may  be  called  to 
contravene  the  decision  of  the  first,  and  so  on  without  end. 


11 

5.  Mutual  councils,  at  present,  arc  constiiutcd  in  a  vianncr  exlremdy 
imfavQurable  to  iinpartiulity,  justice,  and  xinatiimily  ;  so  that  there  is  hut 
litth  prospect  of  a  decision  which  n"ll  give  satisfaction  to  the  parties. 
Councils  are  chosen  in  a  time  of  contention,  when  the  minds  of  all  caii- 
ceined  are  liable  to  irritation,  if  not  to  bitterness.  And  wliat  is  more, 
they  are  chosen  by  the  contending  parties,  and  the  offender,  however 
exceptionable  his  character,  and  however  Ihiorant  his  crimes,  has  an 
equal  inUueuce  in  constituting  the  tribunal  with  the  other  party. 
Doubtless  be  will  make  it  his  object  to  select  men,  who  will  be  his 
particular  friends  and  advocates,  not  those  who  will  be  judicious  and 
impartial.  Who  can  suppose  that  a  council,  so  constituted,  will  be 
candid  and  thorough  in  their  deliberations  ?  Or  how  can  it  be  expected 
that  their  decision  will  bear  such  marks  of  wisdom  and  integrity,  as 
to  prevent  suspicion,  and  lead  to  an  end  of  the  controversy  ?  As  circum- 
stances are,  it  is  by  no  means  strange,  that  a  trial  before  a  nnitual 
council  is  frequently  nothing  but  a  scene  of  animosity  and  strife,  in 
which  the  parties,  aided  by  two  divisions  of  tlie  council,  come  forward 
to  contend  for  victory. 

The  evil  here  complained  of  is  like  that  which  would  be  felt  by  civil 
society,  if  courts  of  justice,  instead  of  being  permanent  bodies,  or- 
ganized in  a  manner  wisely  calculated  to  exclude  all  injustice  and 
respect  of  persons,  should  depend  for  their  existence  and  continu- 
ance, on  the  will  of  disagreeing  parties,  and  so  should  in  fact  be  the 
offspring  of  self-interest,  dishonesty,  and  strife.  In  the  establish- 
ment and  form  of  courts  of  criminal  jurisprudence,  we  should  deem 
it  totally  inadnaissible,  that  either  the  accused  or  the  accuser  should 
have  any  immediate  agency.  We  adhere  to  the  same  equitable  principle 
in  the  discipline  which  is  exercised  by  a  church  over  its  own  members. 
An  offender  must  stand  for  trial  before  the  church, — a  body  which 
has  a  permanent  existence,  and  is  wholly  independent  of  his  will. 
What  mischief  would  be  occasioned  by  givinj  him  the  right  of 
choosing  one  half  of  those  who  should  constitute  a  tribunal  for  his 
trial,  even  if  he  should  be  confined  in  his  choice  to  members  of 
the  church.  But  the  door  is  at  present  open  for  all  these  evils  and 
many  more,  when  offending  ministers  are  to  be  tried,  or  difficulties 
arising-  between  churches  are  to  be  brought  before  an  ecclesiastical 
council. 

The  foregoing  are  the  principal  evils,  which  this  committee  deem 
it  important  to  notice.  Who  does  not  lament  their  existence,  and 
look  with  earnest  desire  for  the  time  of  their  removal  ?  Happy  will 
it  be  for  our  churches,  if,  by  a  wise  reflection  on  their  own  histo- 
ry from  the  beginning,  and  on  events  which  are  constantly  taking 
place,  they  shall  be  able,  through  divine  assistance,  to  obtain  a 
remedy  for  the  disorders  which  have  so  long  afflicted  them,  and  rise 
to  christian  purity,  love,  and  order. 

It  would  be  unreasonable  to  expect,  that  evils,  so  deep-rooted  and 
numerous,  can  be  removed  at  once.  But  we  feel  a  persuasion  that 
the  time  has  arrived  for  important  iniprovemeuts.  We  indulge  a 
pleasing  hope,  that  measures  may  now  be  commenced,  which  will 
vindicate  the  rights  of  the  churches,  contribute  at  once  to  a  sensi- 
ble melioration  of  our  state,  and  eiiiBct,  gradually  indeed,  but  surely, 
the  cure  of  our  various  disorders. 


12 

TTjih  these  views,  and  in  pnrsuance  of  an  object  se  momentous; 
your  Coniniittee  beg  IcaFC  to  subiuit  to  the  consideration  of  this 
General  Association  the  following 

PLAN    OF    ECCLESIASTICAL    ORDER. 

There  is  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism  ;  one  God  and  Father  of 
all :  and  believers  in  Christ  are  all  of  one  family,  one  brother-hood, 
one  glorious  and  holy  fellowship.  Though  this  general  fellowship,  by 
the  appointment  of  the  adorable  Head,  and  tor  great  and  wise  pur- 
poses, is  divided  into  particular  sections :  yet  this  arrangement  is  not 
intended  to  sever  the  unity  of  the  Spirit,  or  to  abate  the  sentiment, 
or  hinder  the  exercise  of  mutual  and  extensive  charity  and  commu- 
nion :  but  as  the  individual  members  of  each  parlicular  church  are 
united  in  one  body  ;  so  the  particular  churches  should  all  be  united 
in  one  federative  and  well  ordered  community.  T  he  vital  principle 
of  ecclesiastical  order,  discipline,  and  government  is  the  pure  spirit 
of  generous  brotherly  love.  It  is  to  a  defect  of  this  spirit,  thai  the 
lamented  disorders,  which  have  long  abounded  in  our  churches,  and 
brought  reproach  upon  Congregationalism,  are  chiefly  to  be  in  puted. 
Let  this  spirit  become  duly  prevalent,  and  the  iuteriour  discipline 
of  the  particular  churches  will  be  easy  and  eifective.  and  their  exte- 
riour  order,  in  relation  one  to  another,  will  be  unembarrassed  and  ir- 
reproachable ;  the  faithful  word  of  the  gospel  w ill  be  held  Ibrth  in 
its  native  parity  and  eti'ulgence  ;  and  our  Zion  will  become  "  beauti- 
ful as  Tirzah,  comely  as  Jerusalem,  and  terrible  as  an  army  with 
banners." 

As  however,  the  unity,  order,  peace  and  prosperity  of  a  particular 
church  is  produced,  preserved,  and  promoted,  by  means  of  an  explicit 
covenant,  formed  on  the  principles  of  the  gospel  ;  so  the  unity,  order, 
peace  and  prosperity  of  the  great  tiederative  community  of  churches 
should  in  like  manner,  be  procured,  preserved  and  promoted,  by  an 
explicit  agreement,  or  compact,  formed  on  the  same  benign  and  holy 
principles.  Something  of  this  sort  is  scarcely  less  obviously  suitable 
and  requisite  lor  the  fellowship  of  the  several  churches,  one  with 
another,  than  for  the  mutual  fellowship  of  the  individual  members  in  a 
particular  church.  Such  an  agreement  or  compact  would  constitute 
properly  a  Consociation  of  the  churches.  And  such  a  Consociation  the 
Platform  of  our  churches  decidedly  favours;  the  principles  for  it  were 
explicitly  set  forth,  indistinct  Propositions,  adopted  by  the  venerable 
Synod,  composed  of  the  elders  and  messengers  of  the  churches,  and 
holden  at  Boston  in  the  year  1662.  The  Propositions,  here  referred 
lo,  are  the  following,  which  were  given  as  a  brief  answer  to  this  ques- 
tion. Whether  according  to  the  word  of  God  there  ought  to  be  a  Conso- 
ciation of  churches,  and  what  should  be  the  manner  of  it  ? 

I.  Kvery  church,  or  particular  congregation  of  visible  saints  in  gos- 
pel-order, being  furnished  with  a  Presbytery,  at  least  with  a  teaching 
«'lder,  and  walking  together  in  truth  and  peace,  hath  received  from  the 
Lord  .Tesus  full  power  and  authority  ecclesiastical  within  itself  regular- 
ly lo  administer  all  the  ordinances  of  Christ,  and  is  not  under  any  other 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction   whatsoever,     for  to  such  a  church  Christ 


13 

bath  given  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  that,  what  they  bind  or 
loose  on  earth  sliall  be  bound  or  loosed  in  iieaven.  Mat.  xvi.  19,  and 
xviii.  17,  18.  Elders  are  ordained  in  every  Church,  Acts  xiv.  23  ;  Tit. 
i.  f),  and  are  therein  authorized  officially  to  administer  in  the  word, 
prayer,  sacraments  and  censures.  Mat.  xxviii.  19,  20;  Acts  vi.  4  ;  1  Cor. 
iv.  1,  and  v.  4. 12;  Acts  xx.  28  ;  1  Tim.  v.  17,  and  iii.  .^.— The  reproving 
of  tJie  church  of  Corinth  and  of  the  Asian  churches  severally  imports 
they  had  power  each  of  them  within  themselves,  to  reform  the  abuses 
that  were  amongst  them,  1  Cor.  v. ;  Rev.  ii.  T4,  20.  Hence  it  follows 
that  consociation  of  churches  is  not  to  hinder  the  exercise  of  this 
power,  but  by  counsel  from  the  word  of  God  to  direct  and  strengthen 
the  same  upon  all  just  occasions. 

II.  The  churches  of  Christ  do  stand  in  a  sisterly  relation  each  to 
other.  Cant.  viii.  8;  being  united  in  the  same  faith  and  order,  Eph.  iv. 
5;  Col.  ii.  5,  to  walk  by  the  same  rule,  Phil.  iii.  16,  in  the  exercise  of 
the  same  ordinances  for  the  same  ends.  Eph.  iv.  11 — 13;  1  Cor.  xvi.  1, 
under  one  and  the  same  political  head,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  Eph.  i. 
22,  23  ;  and  iv.  5 ;  Rev.  ii.  1 ;  which  union  infers  a  communion  suitable 
thereunto. 

III.  Communion  of  churches  is  the  faithful  improvement  of  the  gifts 
of  Christ  bestowed  upon  them  for  his  service  and  glory,  and  their  mu- 
tual good  and  edification,  according  to  capacity  and  opportunity,  1  Pet. 
iv.  10,  1 1  ;  1  Cor.  xlv.  4,  7,  and  x.  24 ;  1  Cor.  iii.  21,  22 ;  Cant.  viii.  9 ; 
Rom.  i.  15 ;  Gal.  vi.  10. 

IV".  Acts  of  communion  of  churches  are  such  as  these  : 

1.  Hearty  care  and  praver  one  for  another,  2  Cor.  xi.  28 ;  Cant.  viii. 
8;  Rom.  i.9;  Col.  i.  9;  Eph.  vi.  18. 

2.  To  afford  relief  by  communication  of  their  gifts  in  temporal  or  spi- 
ritual necessities,  Rom.  xv.  26,  27  ;  Acts  xi.  22,  29  ;  2  Cor.  viii.  1,  4,  14. 

3.  To  maintain  unity  aud  peace  by  giving  account  one  to  another  of 
their  publick  actions,  when  it  is  orderly  desired,  Acts  xi.  2 — 4,  18; 
Josh.xxii.  13r  21,  30;  1  Cor.  x.  32;  and  to  strengthen  one  another  in 
their  regular  administrations ;  as  in  special  by  a  concurrent  testimony 
against  persons  justly  censured,  Acts  xv.  41,  and  xvi.  4,  5;  2  Tim.  iv. 
15;  2Thess.  iii.  14. 

4.  To  seek  and  to  accept  help  from  and  give  help  unto  each  other. 

1.  In  case  of  divisions  and  contentious  whereby  the  peace  of  any 
church  is  disturbed.  Acts  xv.  2. 

2.  la  matters  of  more  than  ordinary  importance,  Prov.  xxiv.  16,  and 
XV.  £2,  as  ordination,  translation,  and  deposition  of  elders  and  such  like, 
1  Tim.  V  22. 

3.  In  doubtful  and  difficult  questions  and  controversies,  doctrinal  oi- 
practical,  that  may  arise.  Acts  xv.  2,  6. 

4.  For  the  rectifying  mal-administrations,  and  healing  oferrours  and 
scandals,  that  are  unhealed  amons  themselves,  3  John,  ver.  9,  10 ; 
2Cor.  ii.  6,  11  ;  1  Cor.  xv.  ;  Rev.  Ii.  14—16;  2Cor.  xii.  20,  21,  and 
xiii.  2.  Churches  rto?i'  have  need  of  like  help  as  well  as  churches  then. 
Christ's  care  is  still  for  whole  churches  as  well  as  for  particular  persons  ; 
and  Apostles  being  now  ceased,  there  remains  the  duty  of  brotherly 
love,  aud  mutual  care  and  helpfulness  incumbent  on  churches,  especial- 
ly ciders  for  that  end. 


14 

5.  In  love  and  faiUituhicss  to  take  notice  of  the  troubles  and  difficul- 
ties, errours  aud  scandals  of  another  church,  and  to  administer  help 
(when  the  case  manifestly  calls  for  it)  though  they  should  so  neglect 
their  own  good  and  duty  as  not  to  seek  it,  Exod.  xxiii.  4,5;  Prov. 
xxiv.  11,  12. 

6.  To  admonish  one  another  when  there  is  need  and  cause  for  it.  and 
after  due  means  with  patience  used,  to  withdraw  from  a  church  or  pec- 
cant party  therein,  obstinately  persisting  inerrour  or  scandal,  as  in  the 
Platform  of  discipline,  (chap.  5,  sect.  2,  particularly  3,)  is  more  at 
large  declared.  Gal.  ii.  11,  14  ;  2  Thess.  iii.6;  Horn.  xvi.  17. 

V.  Consociation  of  churches  is  their  mutual  and  solemn  agreement 
to  exercise  communion  in  such  acts,  as  aforesaid,  amongst  themselves, 
■with  special  reference  to  those  churches,  which  by  providence  are 
planted  in  a  convenient  vicinity,  though  with  liberty  reserved  without 
offence,  to  make  use  of  others,  as  the  nature  of  the  case,  or  the  advan- 
tage of  opportunity  may  lead  thereunto. 

VI.  The  churches  of  Christ  in  this  country  having  so  good  oppor- 
tunity for  it,  it  is  meet  to  be  commended  to  them,  as  their  duty  thus  to 
cousociate.  For  1.  Communion  of  churches  being  commanded,  and 
consociation  being  but  an  agreement  to  practise  it,  this  must  needs  be 
a  duty  also.  Psalm  cxix.  106;  Nehem.  x.  28,29. 

2.  Paul  an  Apostle  sought  with  much  labour  the  conference,  concur- 
rence and  right  hand  of  fellowship  of  other  Apostles;  and  ordinary 
elders  and  churclies  have  not  less  need  each  of  other,  to  prevent  their 
running  in  vain,  Gal.  ii.  2,  6,  9.  „ 

3.  Those  general  scripture  rules  teaching  the  need  and  use  of  coun- 
sel and  help  in  weighty  cases,  concern  all  societies  and  politicks,  eccle- 
siastical as  well  as  civil,  Prov.  xi.  14,  and  xv.  22,  aud  xx.  18,  and  xxiy. 
6;   Ecd.  iv.  9,  10,  12. 

4.  The  pattern  in  Acts  xv.  holds  forth  a  warrant  for  councils,  which 
may  be  greater  or  lesser  as  the  matter  shall  require. 

5.  Concurrence  and  communion  of  churches  in  gospel  times  is  not 
obscurely  held  forth  in  Isa.  xix.  23—25;  Zeph.  iii,  9 ;  1  Cor.  xi.  16, 
andxiv.'32,  3(5. 

6.  There  hatli  coastantly  been  in  these  churches  a  profession  of 
communion  in  giving  the  right  hand  of  ibllowship  at  the  gathering  of 
churches,  and  ordination  of  ciders ;  which  importeth  a  consociation, 
and  obligeth  to  the  practice  thereof.  Without  which  we  should  also 
want  an  expedient  and  sufficient  cure  for  emergent  church  difficulties 
and  differences;  wiih  the  want  whereof  our  way  is  charged,  but  un- 
justly, if  this  part  of  the  doctrine  thereof  were  duly  practised. 

The  principles  of  these  Propositions  are  genuinely  Congregational, 
and  perfectly  coincident,  and  tor  substance,  identical  with  those  of  the 
Platform.  The  Propositions,  indeed,  were  framed  and  adopted  by 
those  venerable  Fathers  of  our  churches,  by  whom,  only  fourteen 
years  before,  the  Plattbrm  was  formed  and  adopted,  and  for  the  very 
purpose  of  carrying  the  design  of  the  Platform  into  more  complete  and 
salutary  effect.  They  are  therefore  especially  suitable  to  be  adopted 
as  the  general  basis  of  an  actual  Consociation,  as  a  Consociation  found- 
ed upon  them,  and  consistent  with  them,  can  be  no  innovation  ;  but  a 
recurrence  to  lirst  principles,  a  restoration  of  our  churches  to  their 
primitive  order,  and  a  guarantee  to  them  of  their  oriijinai  rights,  lil)er- 
lics,  aud  privileges.  To  carry  these  principles  into  good  effect,  nothing 


15 


more  seems  necessary,  than  for  the  churches  explicitly  to  adoot  ^a»,j 
Ar  I*" Th"r''"r""^  foj'o-i"?  articles  of  Agreeme^t^  ^*'  '"^ 
Art.  I.  The  Propositions  of  the  Synod  of  1C62   recited  in   fl.«  r 

sel  Ironi  the  word  of  God  to  dirert  and  stieo-thTn  Tri  .        ^  "■"""■ 
J...t„cea,io,,,,"  and  especially  to  direct  and  sKth^^^ 

a/nSy|e!S:il"L^rr;s.ti'et'zfBtt'';L^r-"^ 

no  church  canri,h,f„l!,  be  i°df  edo       eat'S  1^:1  °*''  '"' 
consociation  withont  its  own  voluntary  comcM  1^  ,.!,  '«^'°"S"'S  'o  a 

it't-'^il'llSat-'-^  "-"■'•""  "™-^^"""  w.-v:n?  s'SJee 

the^;;asLra"dla?Ill:S,rw''il/±';  ^"^''  f,""™'-  Consociation. 

be  a?ceed  pon,  ol  atfecS'o^ci'  srLy"™; Se "a.r^lTr  "  t'" 
siness  which  may  reoulariv  romp  hpfnr^  il  leqnire,  attend  to  any  bu- 

exercises  as  shall  be^j  ,X/d  expedttt  ai^d  Vlf  7""^^  ''^^^''^^^ 
ence,  in  the  spirit  oi^■haritv  and  or  W  ^^^ow  ireedom  of  confer- 

welfare  of  the  churches         ^  '^'  "^"'^  '"'^J*^*^^'  '"^^^t'^S  t"  the 

sc^bec;;o!^tn;;;;'s,fE:^;SS^t!i"^  ^r^'r'^^  -^^ 

.trtment-  if  lo'S^oSt  tio?S  "tEiTcor'  'T'"""^'  ^^^^  "'' 
prized  in  the  General  body  ye  Tt  vviH  hi  ^°"^^^'f '«"«  to  be  com- 
ciation  to  adopt,  tor  the  re^fat  o.  of  L      ^"'"Petenj  f«r  each  Conso- 

direction  and'beneiit  o^tlTe  clZhL  nTe^.a^rTrol^^^^^  '"'  '^'^  ^"^ 
state,  such  rules  and  orescrints  not  1!!  f        }P  *^''^""  consociated 

shall  judge  advisable  ^^'"''^  repugnant  to  this  constitution,  as  it 

ordtrs!  wiuch'L\;l;;  o7e"reVexr''""'^i"-  '^'«^^"'^'-'  -^  ^-- 

on  occasions  of  disLns^ns  and  S.  ?  [r^'''''  '"  ''-""'^  ^«  <'«"""l-^. 
holy  and  pleasant  Sio"hip?w   •c^isThe  3iT^"''f  "^  P'""-'""^*'  ^''^^ 

ri  S2r^;s^l  ^h:%£i?^=^ 
Ksrait^;;^-S=^ 

council  is  requisite.  PartiaiL^^do  t  ev  atee  toliohr'tr"''  1.  * 
te  acquit,  or  to  ^^  ^i^ ^'aJ^HS^-t^o^'^IS  ^^^^ 


16 

may  require. — It  is  to  he  nnderstood,  hoivcvor,  that  any  Particular 
Consociation  may  provide,  upon  principles  and  for  reasons  distinctly  to 
br  made  known  l>y  them  for  eases,  in  which  it  may  not  be  expedient 
i'ov  all  the  memhers  to  be  concerned,  as  aiso  lor  cases  in  which  it  may 
be  pioper  lor  others,  not  of  its  bodv,  to  be  adjnitted  to  sit  in  the  coun- 
cil. 

Art.  7.  Any  regular  application  from  a  church,  for  the  advice  or 
assistance  of  the  Consociation,  shall  receive  kind  and  prompt  atten- 
tion. An  application  from  an  individual,  or  individuals,  will  also  be 
kindly  attended  to,  though  not  without  the  most  guarded  respect  to 
the  righis  and  privileges,  the  order  and  peace  of  the  church  or  churches 
concerned. 

Art.  8.  A  complaint  against  a  minister  may  be  regularly  exhibited 
either  by  the  church  of  which  he  is  pastor,  or  by  a  brother  minister  of 
thf  Consociation  :  but  no  complaint  or  accusation  shall  be  received, 
but  "  before  two  or  three  witnesses." 

Art.  y.  In  all  cases,  the  judgment  of  the  Consociation  is  to  be  re- 
garded and  treated  with  great  respect  by  the  churches  ;  and  if,  in  any 
case,  a  church  after  due  time  taken  for  consideration,  see  cause  to  dis- 
sent, the  reasons  for  dissenting?;  shall  be  clearly  and  in  a  Christian  man- 
ner, staged  in  writing  to  the  Consociation  ;  and  the  Consociation,  hav- 
ing deliberately,  and  in  the  spirit  of  meekness,  considered  the  rea^^ons, 
will  act  as  the  case  may  require;  either  reversing  the  former  judg- 
ment ;  or,  if  it  be  affirmed,  yet  with  charity  and  forbearance,  either  al- 
lowing the  church  quietly  to  act  agreeably  to  its  own  ultimate  judg- 
ment,— or  reviewing  the  case  in  union  with  one  or  two  neighbouring 
Consociations  to  be  convened  logether,  in  whole  or  by  delegation;  or 
dealing  with  the  church  in  the  way  of  Christian  admonition.  But  it  is 
distinctly  provided,  tliat  no  consociated  church  shaii  be  put  out  of 
communion,  unless,  after  a  (irst  and  second  admoniiion  duly  adminis- 
tered, and  after  due  time  allowed  for  it  in  reform  or  to  justify  itself,  it 
.shall  be  solemnly  and  deiilxrately  adjudged  by  the  Consociation  to 
have  forfeited  its  rights  as  a  sister  church. 

Art.  10.  A  church,  or  a  minister,  considering  itself,  or  himself,  as 
aggrieved,  will  have  the  right  of  an  appeal  from  the  Consof  iation  to 
two  or  three  other  Consociations,  to  be  convened,  as  provided  for.  in 
the  next  preceding  article.  Private  church  meuiljers  are  not  in<lud;d 
iu  this  article ;  because  the  cases  of  private  members  are  cognisable 
by  the  Consociation,  only  in  so  far  as  the  churches  to  which  they  be- 
long are  implicated. 

This  Committee  would  farther  suggest  to  the  General  Association 
the  propriety  of  the  following  recommendation;  viz.  that  when  two 
or  more  Consociations  are  formed,  measures  be  taken  to  promote  such 
an  understanding  and  consultation  between  them  as  will  secure,  as 
far  as  possible,  a  coincidence  au<l  uniibrmity  with  regard  to  the  exer- 
cise and  discipline,  and  all  their  modes  of  proceeding  in  their  respec- 
tive connexions. 

Signed, 

per  order, 

Jedidiah  Morse,  ChainnaH.- 


PREFACE. 
TO  THE  REVEREND  JOSEPH  LYMAN,  D.  D. 

MODBRATOR    OF    A    BODY,    STYLING    ITSBI.F    "    THE    OKNERAL    ASSOCIATIOK 

OF    MAOSACHUSBTrS    PROPEB." 
( 

Reverend  Sir, 

^  o  apology  can  be  required  for  the  liberty,  which  I 
take,  of  introducing  your  name  to  the  publick  in  connexion 
with  this  solemn  and  interesting  inquiry,  because  it  appears 
by  the  proceedings  of  (he  association,  of  which  you  was 
moderator,  that  the  subject  of  this  essay  was  explicitly  re- 
commended to  publick  attention,  with  a  very  distinct  inti- 
mation, that  that  body  would  proceed  upon  its  own  au- 
thority alone,  to  act  definitively  upon  the  subject  at  its 
next  annual  meeting.  Unprecedented  as  may  be  this  mode 
of  legislation,  in  one  of  the  most  important  concerns,  which 
can  affect  society,  it  will  appear  to  be  the  course  contem- 
plated by  your  learned  and  venerable  association,  by  the 
following  vote  of  that  body,  published  by  your  order  in 
the  Panoplist  of  August  last. 

"  Voted,  to  go  into  a  free  discussion  of  the  subject  of  the 
"  following  motion — '  That  the  report  of  the  committee  ap- 
"  pointed  to  inquire  into  the  history  of  an  original  MS.  doc- 
"  ument,  &c.  &c.  be  printed,  and  copies  sent  to  the  several 
"  associations  in  our  connexion  for  the  purpose  o{ ascertain- 
"  ing  the  publick  sentiments  respecting  the  plan  ofeccleai- 


18 


"  astica!  order  therein  presented,  and  that  the  subject  be 
"  called  up  at  the  next  meeting  of  the  general  association.* 
"  After  discussion  (he  motion  was  passed  into  a  vote,  and 
"  Messrs.  Morse,  Codman,  and  Woods,  appointed  a  com- 
"  mittee  for  publishing  the  abovementioned  report,  with  in- 
"  sJructions  to  print  it  in  connexion  with  the  preceding 
"  vote." 

It  is  obvious,  that  there  is  an  appeal  to  the  people  on 
this  topick,  and  it  would  be  indecorous  in  them  to  disregard 
it.  But  although  jou.  Sir,  and  your  brethren  of  the  asso- 
ciation may  comprehend  fully  the  subject  and  ultimate 
bearings  of  that  report,  yet  the  above  notice  and  vote  w'lY 
convey  a  very  imperfect  idea  of  it  to  the  people  at  large, 
who  have  not  the  privilege  of  seeing  the  Panopiist. 

I  shall  therefore  take  the  liberty  to  state  generally  what 
you.  Sir,  know  to  be  true,  and  what  1  shall  prove  such  in  the 
course  of  my  inquiry,  that  this  report  contains  a  project 
no  less  solemn  and  important,  than  that  of  abolishing  in 
whole  the  old  constitution,  under  which  the  Congre- 
gational churches  have  prospered  during  the  last  one  hun- 
dred and  sixty  years,  and  of  substituting  in  its  place,  a  new 
system  of  problematical  merit  in  itself,  and  directly  oppos- 
ed to  the  constitution  of  this  state,  if  not  subversive  of  the 
rights  and  liberties  of  the  Congregational  churches. 

If  such  an  important  measure  had  been  by  any  serious 
Christians  deemed  necessary  for  the  cause  of  Christianity, 
it  is  difficult  to  perceive  any  reasons  why  it  should  have  been 
introduced  in  a  manner  so  exceptionable.  There  has  al- 
ways existed  a  body  in  this  state,  of  which  you,  Sir,  and  all 
your  associates  are  members,  familiar  to  the  people,  venera- 
ble frotn  its  antiquity,  cathollck  in  its  organization,  embrac- 
ing all  the  Congregational  clergy,  and  entitled  to  the  respect 
of  all  congregafionalists — the  Convention  of  Congregational 
niiuisters.     It  does  not  readily  occur  to  us,  why  a  certafn 


]9 

portion  of  flie  Congregational  clergy,  in  contempt  of  the 
known  opinions  of  this  ancient  and  venerable  assembly, 
should  propose  an  entire  new  code  of  ecclesiastical  discipline 
of  their  own  authority,  unless  it  arises  from  the  conviction, 
that  such  a  measure  would  be,  as  it  has  been,  rejected  by 
that  body. 

The  right  of  those,  who  think  themselves  more  pure  than 
their  brethren,  to  separate,  and  form  new  associations,  can- 
not be  questioned  ;  nor  shall  we  deny  to  them  the  pretext 
of  all  innovators,  that  of  reforming,  rather  than  changing; 
but  they  must  permit  us  to  doubt  the  expediency  as  well  as 
consistency  of  such  conduct  in  men,  whose  professed  ob- 
ject is  union. 

If  the  ancient  councils  of  the  church  are  to  be  considered 
as  any  authority,  (as  it  seems  much  reliance  is,  placed  on 
some  of  their  dogmas,  in  matters  of  faith,)  itjs  to  be  regret- 
ted, that  in  this  instance  their  example  had  not  been  follow- 
ed. To  them  were  invited  prelates  of  all  opinions,  without 
distinction,  unless  when  for  fraudulent  or  ambitious  pur- 
poses a  selected  council,  like  a  packed  jury,  was  sum- 
moned. 

In  what  manner  even  your  parfiaZ  associations  have  been 
constituted  we  are  not  advised.  Whether  in  violation  of 
the  constitution,  the  Church  members  alone  have  ventured 
to  elect  and  instruct  delegates  on  these  weighty  affairs,  or 
whether  the  whole  society,  at  meetings  duly  warned,  deputed 
their  pastors  to  represent  them  ;  or  whether,  as  some  peo- 
ple have  said,  I  hope  untruly,  the  ministers  alone  have  un- 
dertaken to  form  an  association  and  to  assume  such  powers, 
lam  equally  ignorant.  It  is  however  apparent  by  the  vote 
above  cited,  that  although  you  profess,  Sir,  to  call  for 
the  publick  sentiments,  yet  you  restrict  this  appeal  to 
the  "  several  associations  in  your  connexion."     Whether 


20 


you  think  that  Oity  alone  have  a  right  to  express  any  opin- 
ions or  entertain  any  sentiments  respecting  it,  or  whether 
you  consider  the  separation  aheady  effected,  and  the  new 
Church  already  organized,  we  are  not  informed. 

If  j'our  object  be  simply  to  form  a  new  system  of  Church 
government  for  that  limited  portion  of  the  congregational 
churches  who  are  represented  in  your  body,  it  is  in  effect  and 
should  be  entitled  "  A  scheme  for  effecting  the  secession 
of  certain  churches  from  the  old  Congregational  church, 
and  the  establishment  of  a  new  form  of  church  government 
for  the  seceders,  under  the  title  of  the  Massachusetts  Grand 
Association." 

You  would  do  Avell  to  consider  whether  your  plan  will 
have  the  smallest  practical  operation.  Whether  it  can  re- 
strain "  he;-esy,"  prevent  the  settlement  of  "  corrupt  he- 
retical ministers"  protect  the  orthodox  clergy  from  "  slan- 
der" and  promote  "  union"  in  the  church  ;  all  which 
objects  are  professed  by  your  committee. 

If  the  courJs  of  law  cannot  uphold  you  ;  if  a  restless  ad- 
vocate for  religious  freedom,  a  friend  to  the  old  independent 
form  of  government,  should  appeal  from  your  consociaiion 
to  a  mutual  council,  and  the  offer  of  such  council  should 
be  rejected  ;  if  he,  with  his  associates,  should  then  proceed 
to  appoint  an  ex  parle  council,  and  they  should  recommend 
the  dissolution  of  the  compact  between  the  minister  and  his 
parish,  and  if  this  man  should  have  sufficient  influence  to 
procure  a  majority  of  the  legal  voters  in  the  parish  for  a 
dismis:?al,  and  if  in  such  a  case  the  court  shoidd  hold  the 
pastor  regularly  dismissed,  which  they  most  unquestionably 
will  do,  what  will  become  of  the  consociations  ? 

They  may  thunder  out  tlieir  anathemas  in  vain.  They 
will  be  like  those  which  the  Pope  issued  against  llenry  the 
VIII.  the  object  of  contempt  and  ridicule.  Of  what 
benefit    then,    reverend   Sir,  can    be  this  attempt    to    in- 


21 

novate  in  the  church  ?  Is  it  politick  to  discover  the  will, 
when  il  is  morally  certain,  that  you  will  not  have  the  power 
to  lyiannize  ? 

I  confess  to  you,  Sir,  I  can  perceive  in  this  measure  only 
the  germ  of  new  and  scandalous  dissensions,  afflictive  and 
disgraceful  to  ihe  Church  of  Christ.  The  old  associations 
will  be  brought  into  constant  collision  with  the  new,  and  be- 
ing sustained  by  truth,  the  constitution  and  the  laws,  they 
will  iux^^vitably  triumph.  However  your  devotees  may  be 
kept  some  time  in  ignorance,  they  will  finally  understand 
their  rights,  and  on  the  first  cause  of  offence  they  will  fly  off 
and  appeal  to  the  old  associations. 

I  am  happy  in  addressing  this  preface  to  a  man  whom  I 
would  fain  believe,  from  his  character,  to  be  incapable  of 
abetting  the  designs  of  the  projectors  of  this  scheme.  How- 
ever ardent  you  may  be  in  the  support  of  your  principles, 
I  cannot  bring  myself  to  think,  that  you  would  promote  a 
measure  inconsistent  with  the  great  principles  of  the  con- 
stitution, subversive  of  the  religious  liberties  of  the  people, 
and  tending  directly  to  the  most  dreadful  anarchy  in  the 
Church. 

A  LAYMAN, 


AN  INQUIRY,  &c. 

In  pursuing  the  proposed  inquiry,  I  shall  principally  ad- 
dress my  remarks  to  Laymen,  who  constitute  the  great  mass 
of  society. 

Whatever  may  be  the  benefits,  or  evils,  of  the  proposed 
change,  the  layman  must  principally  feel  (hem.  It  is  for 
the  interest  of  the  great  body  of  the  people,  that  all  reli- 
gious establishments  are  formed,  and  they  ought  to  have 
for  their  object  the  happiness,  temporal  and  eternal,  of  lay- 
men. The  Clergy  are  but  the  Angels  or  Ministers  of  God 
to  make  known  and  spread  his  revelations,  and  all  the  in- 
stitutions of  religion  have  respect  rather  to  those  who  are 
to  be  (aught,  than  those  who  are  the  teachers. 

In  (his  age,  it  will  be  readily  admitted,  that  any  project 
whose  tendency  is  only  to  aggrandize  the  Clerical  order, 
without  promoting,  in  a  correspondent  degree,  piety  and 
virtue  among  the  people,  should  be  the  object  of  distrust 
and  jealousy. 

Any  system,  which  tends  to  restore  those  hierarchical  es- 
tablishments which  were  calculated  to  exalt  the  clergy,  who 
ought  only  to  be  the  ins(ruc(ers  of  (heir  bre(hren,  over  the 
laity  ;  establishments,  which  retained  the  Christian  world, 
for  so  many  ages,  in  a  slate  of  servitude  to  the  privileged 
orders  of  the  Clergy  ;  must  be  injurious  to  true  religion. 

It  cost  the  lives  of  some  millions  of  men  to  vindicate  the 
rights  of  conscience,  and  to  free  (he  Chrisdan  community 
from  the  shackles  by  which  it  had  been  so  long  restrained. 


23 

Experience  has  taught  us,  that  no  men  abuse  power  more 
readily  than  Ecclesiasticks.  It  is  probably  owicg  even  to 
fheir  virtues  in  excess.  Secluded  in  some  degree  by  their 
funcfions  from  the  common  intercourse  of  the  world,  ac- 
customed to  consider  their  offices  and  doctrines  of  para- 
mount importance,  feeling  an  accountability  to  God,  and 
therefore  holding  in  small  estimation  the  esteem  and  opin- 
ions of  their  fellow  men  ;  jet,  liable  like  other  men  to 
passions  and  frailties,  from  which  their  purity  and  princi- 
ples cannot  effectually  guard  them,  they  have  in  all  ages 
mistaken,  and  from  the  constitution  of  human  nature  they 
probably  will  for  ever  continue  to  mistake,  their  own  pre- 
judices and  opinions,  their  passions  and  even  their  vices,  for 
inspiration  and  duty.  Hence  they  have  been  often  seen  in 
the  name  of  a  just  and  benevolent  God,  and  under  the  pre- 
tence of  promoting  the  cause  of  true  religion,  to  adopt 
such  principles,  and  to  exercise  such  intolerant  and  despo- 
tick  powers,  as  no  men,  acting  from  less  honourable  motives, 
would  have  dared  to  attempt. 

Yes.  There  are  no  crimes  which  can  be  compared  to 
those,  which  a  mistaken  view  of  Religion  has  induced  men 
to  commit. 

This  truth,  which  every  page  of  history  for  many  cen- 
turies confirms,  and  which  so  far  from  derogating  from  the 
truth  and  weight  of  the  Christian  system,  serves  only  to 
confirm  it ;  since  it  has  successfully  withstood  these  injuries 
of  its  friends,  more  fatal  than  those  which  its  enemies  could 
have  inflicted  :  this  important  truth  seems  now  to  be  gen- 
erally acknowledged  in  the  civilized  world,  and  the  effect 
of  it  has  been  to  control  as  far  as  possible  the  power  of  the 
clergy,  leaving  to  them  only,  undisturbed,  their  rightful 
province,  that  of  Instructers  and  Teachers. 

In  this  country  the  experiment  has  been  fairly  made. 
We  have  seen  a  body  of  Christian  instructers,  who  have  for 


24 

nearly  two  centuries,  gone  in  and  out  before  their  people 
with  no  other  power  or  influence,  than  what  they  have  de- 
rived from  the  purity  and  sanctity  of  their  lives,  and  the 
weight  and  imjortance  of  the  doctrines  which  they  taught. 
AVhere  is  the  man  who  will  have  the  hardihood  to  say, 
that  this  people,  (I  allude  to  those  portions  of  the  country 
which  have  enjoyed  a  stated  ministry  ;)  where  is  the  man 
who  will  affirm,  that  the  moral  and  religious  habits  of  our 
country  are  not  superiour  to  those  of  any  nation  in  which 
the  Clergy  enjoy  the  dangerous  powers  which  Dr.  Morse, 
in  his  report,  recommends  the  Clergy  to  seize  and  exercise  ? 
Shall  we  then,  with  all  this  experience  in  favour  of  our 
system,  consent  to  exchange  it  for  one,  in  which  the  most 
busy  and  intriguing,  the  restless,  factious  and  ambitious 
among  the  clergy  shall  have  a  right  to  settle  the  articles  of 
faith  ;  determine  who  shall,  and  who  shall  not  be  ordained, 
"  tind  guilty,  sustain,  and  depose  ?" 

Such  alarming  powers  are  in  fact  proposed,  not  for  adop- 
tion by  the  people,  but  for  assumption  by  the  New  Massa- 
chusetts Association. 

The  legality  of  such  an  assumption  is  the  principal  ob- 
ject of  my  Inquiry.  It  is  no  less  solemn  a  question,  than 
whether  on  the  most  important  of  all  subjects,  the  People 
have,  or  have  not  any  righls  ;  or  whether  the  clergy  have 
a  right  to  assume  the  power  of  dictating  to  them,  not  only 
in  matters  of  faith  and  discipline,  but  in  the  election  and 
deposition  of  their  pastors. 

I  shall  divide  this  essay  into  Chapters,  for  the  more  con- 
venient examination  of  the  various  branches  of  the  subject. 
Chapter    1st.   The  principles   and  practice  of  our  an- 
cestors in  this  country  on  this  subject. 
In  Chapter   '2d,  I  shall    consider,  what  authority  can  he 
found  for  these  extraordinary  powers,  this  ecclesias- 
tical jurisdiction   proposed   by    Dr.  Morse,    in    the 
history  of  the  Early  Church. 


25 

Chapter  3.  The  professed  motives  for  aholishm^  tht 
Cambridge  Platform,  and  substituting  this  coercive 
system  in  its  place. 

Chapter  4.  The  real  but  secret  motives  for  this  inno- 
vation. 

Chapter  5.  What  are  the  rights  of  the  People  of  Mas- 
sachusetts with  regard  to  Religious  establishments,  as 
fixed  by  the  Constitution,  and  by  Judicial  decisions. 


CHAPTER  I. 

The  Principles  and  Practice  of  our  Ancestors  on  this 
Subject. 

The  origin  of  Congregattenal,  or,  as  they  were  at  first 
called,  Independent  Churches,  is  too  recent  to  admit  of 
controversy.  We  have  no  occasion  to  resort  to  learned 
divines  or  doctors  to  settle  this  point.  History  has  within 
this  period  too  much  certainty  ;  there  have  been  too  many 
rival  writers,  and  the  documents  are  too  well  preserved,  to 
leave  any  doubt  upon  so  plain  a  question. 

When  the  English  Church  was  separated  from  the  Ro- 
mish communion,  it  retained  all  the  features  of  the  hie- 
rarchy, as  to  the  external  government  of  the  Church. 

The  king  at  first  claimed  to  be  the  Spiritual  head,  and 
exercised  as  oppressive  and  despotick  a  power  as  that 
which  the  successors  of  St.  Peter  had  done.  It  is  difficult 
to  ascertain,  with  the  aid  of  the  best  historians,  and  the  au- 
thentick  documents  of  the  sixteenth  and  sevenfeenlh  cen 
turies,  whether  this  religious  despotism,  or  the  tyrannic^' 
4 


26 

measures  of  the  Tudor  and  Stuart  families  contributed  most 
to  the  disturbances  which  convulsed  Great  Britain  during 
those  ages.  It  is  however  certain,  (hat  the  ecclesiastical 
usurpations  naturally  co-operated  with  other  oppressions  in 
producing  the  civil  wars,  and  were  almost  the  sole  cause  of 
the  glorious  revolution  in  1688. 

The  6rst  efforts  against  the  hierarchy  were  made  by 
the  Presbyterians.  This  sect,  like  most  reformers,  and 
innovators,  did  not  content  themselves  with  abolishing 
the  hierarchy,  but  like  the  dissenters  from  the  Romish 
Church,  they  were  so  much  under  the  influence  of  their 
early  prejudices,  that  they  could  form  no  ideas  of  tolerance 
in  religion.  Tiicy  considered  not  only  that  truth  must  be 
single,  but  that  the  Church  had  an  exclusive  right  to 
interpret  the  scriptures,  and  prescribe  what  is  Truth,  and 
how  and  what  men  should  believe. 

They  adopted  precisely  the  errour  which  had  led  to  all 
the  usurpations  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  As  the  Church 
of  England,  at  its  separation  from  the  Romish  see,  had 
presumptuously  arrogated  to  itself  all  the  powers  of  which 
it  had  stripped  the  Roman  Pontiff,  under  pretence  that  they 
were  unscriplural ;  so  the  Presbyterians,  in  their  turn,  who 
derived  both  their  liostility  to  the  hierarchy  and  their  in- 
tolerant principles  from  the  Scottish  covenanters,  insisted 
upon  the  same  Jus  divinum  in  favour  of  their  upstart 
I'resbytery,  and  imposed  fetters  as  galling  as  Gregory  the 
YIII.  in  the  summit  of  his  power,  would  have  dared  to 
impose. 

But  the  English  nation  was  in  a  state  of  ferment  too  great 
to  submit  to  such  servitude.  They  felt,  as  we  now  fee!, 
that  if  they  must  be  subjected  in  matters  of  conscience 
to  human  arrogance  and  power,  they  should  prefer  an 
.authority  more  distant,  more  venerable  by  its  antiquitj', 
rriore  learned,   more   impartial,  than   that  of   the  Plebeian 


27 

Presbyters  who  had  deposed  the  Prelates  only  to  tyrannize 
in  their  sfead. 

A  new  sect  arose,  first  under  the  name  of  Brownisls ; 
which  denomination  becoming  unpopular,  they  assumed  that 
of  Independents,  and  when  they  emigrated  to  this  country, 
they  adopted  the  more  unexceptionable  and  les9  odious 
name  of  Congregationalists. 

That  this  sect  were  the  founders  of  the  Congregational 
Churches  in  New-England,  will  not  be  disputed.  Their 
characters  and  principles  are  the  theme  of  daily  panegyrick, 
by  the  same  persons  who  are  now  about  to  destroy  that  part 
of  their  fabrick  which  was  most  worthy  of  commendation,  I 
mean  the  entire  equality  and  independence  of  the  Churches. 

These  sectaries,  the  founders  of  our  Churches,  denied 
all  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction.  They  maintained  the  per- 
fect equality  as  well  as  independence  of  all  the  Churches. 
They  had,  at  first,  no  associations  of  any  kind.  When  the 
Church  of  England  was  restored,  and  they  became  again 
the  subjects  of  persecution,  they  fled  to  this  country,  hoping 
they  might  find  in  the  wilderness,  what  Europe  would  not 
afford  them,  an  entire  and  absolute  freedom  of  Religious 
opinion. 

But  it  is  not  in  human  nature  to  be  free  from  ambition, 
nor  even  to  be  consistent  always  with  one's  own  principles. 
Among  these  strenuous  asserters  of  Christian  freedom,  there 
soon  arose,  as  there  will  ever  arise,  ambitious  and  intriguing 
divines.  These  persecuted  men  became  persecutors,  and 
their  conduct  towards  the  Quakers,  in  the  early  settlement 
of  this  country,  is  a  blot  which  can  never  be  effaced. 

God  of  his  infinite  mercy  grant,  that  we  may  not  leave  a 
blot  of  a  still  deeper  dye,  by  the  adoption  of  the  proposed 
system,  in  direct  opposition  to  the  principles  of  our 
Church  ! 


28 

Soon  after  the  settlement  of  our  country,  a  synod,  cam- 
posed  of  clergy  and  laity,  established,  not  a  system  of 
Church  Government,  for  that  their  principles  rejected,  but 
an  harmonious  plan  of  settling  differences  in  the  Church. 
This  is  well  known  by  the  name  of  the  Cambridge  Plat- 
form ;  and  so  wisely  and  judiciously  was  it  framed,  that  it 
has  survived  all  our  civil  convulsions,  our  municipal  and 
political  revolutions.  This  plan  bears  no  analogy  to  the 
different  schemes  of  Ecclesiastical  tyranny,  which  ambition 
and  cunning  have  introduced,  and  which  ignorance  and  su- 
peistition  have  permitted.  Its  authority  is  chiefly  moral. 
It  has  scarcely  any  sanctions  but  sentiment  and  opinion. 
Its  powers  are  purely  advisory.  It  provides  for  a  mutual 
council  in  case  of  differences  between  a  pastor  and  his  peo» 
p'c.  This  is  simply  an  arbitration  justificatory,  but  not 
obligatory.  It  settles  the  point  of  character.  It  gives  the 
Pastor  a  right  to  go,  or  the  People  to  dismiss,  without  vio- 
lating the  proper  duties  and  relations  of  Christians  to  each 
other.  In  case  of  a  refusal  of  a  mutual  council,  the  party 
complaining  may  elect  a  council  ex  parte,  that  is,  without 
the  other.  The  result  of  this  last  council  (for  our  ancestors 
were  too  jealous  of  power  to  call  it  a  decree)  is  merely 
recommendatory.  It  dissolves  no  ties.  It  can  impose  no 
penalties^  It  can  neith^er  sustain  or  depose.  Every  thing 
is  still  referred  back  to  the  source  of  all  power,  the  People 
of  the  Parish.  If  neither  party  should  adopt  the  advice 
of  the  Council,  it  is  a  mere  dead  letter.     For  example, 

If  a  Parish  should  have  complained  against  a  Pastor  for 
heretical  opinions,  and  the  Council  should  decide  them  to- 
be  such,  and  therefore  recommend  a  dismission,  still,  if  the 
Parish  should  afterwards  be  converted  to  the  opinions  of 
the  Pastor,  or  should  be  ashamed  of  their  illiberality  in 
prosecuting  him,  his  Pastoral  character  and  rights  would  be 
uadisturbed. 


29 

This  is  the  very  complaint  of  the  persecutors.  "  There 
is  no  inquisition,  no  coercive  power ;  and  how  can  a  Church 
flourish  if  some  of  the  pious  men  have  no  means  of  grati- 
fying their  passions  against  their  personal  enemies  ?"  Such 
however  is  the  present  condition  of  our  Churches.  They 
are  in  every  sense  independent.  No  human  power  can 
change  this  system  but  by  violence- 
It  ought  not  however  to  be  denied,  that  there  have  been 
two  attempts  to  overset  this  peaceable  plan  of  Church 
government. 

One  by  Dr.  Mather  and  others  in  1706,  which  was  not  suf- 
fered to  go  into  effect,  on  account  of  its  being  deemed  hostile 
to  the  liberties  of  the  Church,  as  he  himself  admits ;  the  other 
by  Dr.  Morse,  a  few  years  since,  in  the  convention  of  minis- 
ters, which  was  thrown  out,  as  I  am  told,  with  pretty  strong 
expressions  of  general  disgust.  Not  discouraged,  this  inde- 
fatigable man,  with  others,  finding  the  convention  of  the 
whole  clergy  unfavourable  to  his  views,  has  now  called  a 
Caucus  of  his  own  party,  with  the  design  of  forcing  or 
imposing  upon  the  people,  as  I  conceive,  an  entirely  new 
form  of  Church  government. 

Before  I  proceed  to  consider  this  project,  which  is  the 
subject  of  the  third  chapter,  I  will  cite  one  or  two  among 
fifty  authorities,  to  shew  that  my  description  of  the  senti- 
ments of  the  Brownists,  Independents,  or  Congregational- 
ists,  is  correct. 

In  the  British  Encyclopedia,  revised  in  this  country,  and 
reprinted  by  Dobson,  we  have  the  following  account  of  the 
*' Brownists." 

"The  whole  power  of  admitting  and  excluding  members, 
with  the  decision  of  all  controversies,  was  lodged  in  the 
brotherhood.  As  the  vote  of  the  brotherhood  made  a 
man  a  minister,  and  gave  him  authority  to  preach  the 
word  and  administer   the  sacraments,  »o  the  same  power 


30 

could  discharge  him  fiom  the  office,  and  reduce  him  to  a 
mere  layman  again ;  and  as  they  maintained  the  bounds  of 
a  church  to  be  no  greater,  than  what  could  meet  toii,eiher  in 
one  place,  and  join  in  one  communion,  so  the  power  ot  Iheir 
officers  was  prescribed  within  these  limits  ;  in  a  vioid, every 
church  in  a  Brownist  model  is  a  body  corporate,  having,  tuU 
power  to  do  every  thing  which  the  good  ol"  the  society  re- 
quires, without  being  accountable  to  any  classis,  synod, 
convocation,  or  other  jurisdiction  whatever.^^  "Most  of 
their  discipline  has  been  adopted  by  the  Independents." 

Indeed,  1  may  add,  they  were  in  fact  the  same  church, 
though  they  altered  the  name  on  account  of  Brown's 
apostasy. 

The  settlers  at  Plymouth  were  Brownists,  as  Dr.  Belknap 
assures  us  in  the  life  of  Robinson,  though  for  the  aforesaid 
reason  they  altered  the  name.  Dr.  Mosheim's  account  of 
the  Brownists  essentially  agrees  with  the  authority  above 
cited.  The  publisher  of  his  works  states  expressly  that 
the  Brownists  were  the  founders  of  New  England. 

But  a  much  more  perfect  account  of  the  religion  of  our 
ancestors  may  be  found  in  the  Encyclopedia ;  title,  Inde- 
pendents. 

It  is  there  stated,  that  Brown  was  the  founder  of  the  pre- 
sent sect  of  Congregationalists,  though  his  system  was  sof- 
tened by  his  successors,  of  whom  the  chief  place  is  given 
to  the  venerable  Robinson. 

That  pious  man's  definition  of  a  Christian  Church  seems 
to  settle  the  question,  as  to  the  legality  or  propriety  of  conso- 
ciations with  judicial  powers,  unless  it  is  intended  openly  to 
renounce  the  Congregational  principle.  It  is  "  Coeium 
qiiemllbet  particiilarem  esse  totam,  integrum,  et  perfectam 
ecclesiam  ex  siiis  partibns  constantem  immediate  et  Inde- 
pendenter  {quoad  alias  ecclesias)  sub  ipsoChristo.^'  "  That 
every  separate  christian  society  is  a  whole,  entire  and  per- 


31 

feet  church,  holding  its  authority  (at  least  so  far  as  respects 
other  churches)  immediately  and  independently  from 
Christ  himself." 

The  two  following  are  said,  by  these  impartial  and  ortho' 
dox  editors,  to  be  the  distinguishing  features  of  Congrega- 
tionalism ;  upon  which  we  may  exclaim,  "  How  has  the  gold 
become  dim  !  !" 

"  1.  The  Independents  reject  the  use  of  all  creeds  and 
confessions  drawn  up  by  fallible  men,  requiring  of  their 
teachers  no  other  test  of  orthodoxy  than  a  declaration  of 
their  belief  in  the  Gospel  of  Jesus,  diud  their  adherence  to 
the  Scriptures  as  the  rule  of  their  faith." 

This  was  written  thirty  years  ago,  probably  by  an  Eng- 
lish divine.  It  is  a  true  representation  of  Congregational- 
ism. At  thi«  day  Dr.  Porter,  Mr.  Channing  and  others, 
are  abused  for  maintaining,  what  this  learned  work  declares 
to  be  a  distinguishing  feature  of  Congregationalism. 

The  second  distinctive  tenet  of  Congregationalism  is, 
"That  they  lay  no  stress  upon  the  rite  of  ordination,  accord- 
ing to  the  Episcopal  or  even  Presbyterian  forms.  That  a 
minister  may  be  set  apart  and  authorized  to  preach  by  any 
christian  society." 

Ampng  the  arguments,  which  this  work  recites,  as  used 
by  the  Congregationalists  in  favour  of  their  principles,  are 
the  following,  which  are  pertinent  to  our  present  question, 
and  shew  the  unscriptural  nature  of  Dr.  Morse's  new  conso- 
ciations. "  That  the  word  «x\«o-(«  which  we  translate 
Church,  is  always  used  in  scripture  to  signify  either  a  sin- 
gle congregation,  or  the  place  (or  building)  where  a  single 
congregation  meets."  Sundry  texts  in  support  of  this  con- 
struction are  then  cited,  and  the  writer  proceeds  to  say, 
"  Besides  these,  the  Independents  can  find  no  other  de- 
scription of  a  church  in  the  New  Testament;  not  a  trace  of 
ji  diocese  or  Presbytery  consisting  of  several  congregations 
subject  to  one  jurisdiction." 


32 

*'  The  number  of  disciples  in  Jerusalem  was  very  great, 
before  they  were  dispersed  by  the  persecution,  in  which  St. 
Paul  bore  so  great  a  part,  yet  they  are  never  mentioned  as 
forming  distinct  assemblies,  but  as  one  assembly  meeting  in 
one  place.  After  the  dispersion,  as  they  could  never  meet 
in  one  place,  they  are  never  called  a  church,  or  one  church, 
but  the  churches  of  Judea,  &c.  Hence  the  Independent 
concludes,  that  in  Jerusalem,  church  and  congregation  were 
of  the  same  import."  In  the  same  manner  the  work  from 
which  these  quotations  are  made,  proceeds  to  adduce  the 
arguments  of  the  Independents  against  all  separate  power  in 
the  elders,  as  distinct  from  the  people  of  the  congregation,and 
against  all  jurisdiction  of  one  or  more  churches  over  each 
other.  The  arguments  are  very  satisfactory,  to  which  our 
readers  are  referred.  It  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose  that 
we  have  performed  what  we  undertook,  viz.  to  shew,  what 
were  the  principles  of  our  ancestors  in  this  country,  the 
early  and  true  Congregationalists,  on  this  subject  of  Church 
government. 

It  has  been  proved,  that  the  essence  of  Congregational- 
ism is  the  perfect  independence  of  each  separate  church, 
and  the  denial  of  any  judicial  authority  in  any  body  beyond 
or  without  each  separate  society. 

To  say,  that  you  wish  to  promote  the  prosperity  of  the 
church,  meaning  the  Congregational  Churches,  by  adopting 
such  a  consociation  as  is  proposed,  is  as  absurd  as  it  would 
be  to  say,  that  you  are  in  favour  of  civil  liberty,  and  a  Re- 
publican government,  with  a  despofick  hereditary  empeiour 
at  its  head,  or  ©f  Protestantism,  but  under  absolute  submis- 
sion to  the  see  of  Rome. 


33 


CHAPTER  II. 

The  authority  for  these  extrajrdinary  powers  and  Ecclesi- 
astical Jurisdiction,  now  claimed  by  Dr.  Morse,  to  be 
found  in  the  history  of  the  Early  Church, 

I  SHALL  select  as  competent  authority  on  this  point,  Dr. 
MosHEiM,  because  no  man  will  denj  his  orthodoxy,  and 
few  will  be  disposed  to  question  his  learning  and  iinpartiali- 
Ij.  It  is  not  expedient  to  embarrass  our  brethren  of  the 
laity  with  numerous  quotations.  It  will  be  sufficient  for 
their  satisfaction,  to  cite  one  ecclesiastical  historian  of  un- 
doubted credit,  who  refers  his  readers  to  his  authorities  for 
every  assertion. 

Dr.  Mosheim  affirms,  "  that  neither  Christ  himself,  nor 
any  of  his  Apostles,  have  commanded  any  thing  clearly  and 
expressly  concerning  the  external  form  of  the  church,  and 
the  precise  method  according  to  which  it  should  be  govern- 
ed. From  this  we  may  infer,  that  the  regulation  of  this  was 
in  some  measure  to  be  accommodated  to  the  times,  and  left 
to  the  wisdom  of"  the  chief  rulers  of  the  stale  and  church.^* 
— See  Mosheim's  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  i.  p.  97. 

If  this  proposition  be  true,  there  exists  no  authority  in  the 
state  of  Massachusetts,  to  establish  any  precise  form  of 
church  government,  or  to  give  to  any  one  church  or  num- 
ber of  churches  authority  over  any  single  church.  For  our 
State  rulers  are  expressly  prohibited  by  the  3d  article  of 
the  constitution  from  so  doing,  and  as  to  "Chief  Rulers"  in 
the  church,  we  have  never  had  any  in  this  state. 

The  church  as  a  general  term,  embraces  every  sect  of 
christians,  whether  Episcopalians,  Congregationalists,  Pres- 
byterians, Baptists,  Methodists,  ITniversalists  or  Qua- 
kers ;  for  our  laws  recognise  all  these  sects  expressly  as 
equally  members  of  the  Christian  church. 


34 

Does  any  man  deny  this  proposition? 

Let  him  consider,  tJiat,  by  our  consfilulion,  any  man  is 
exempted  from  attending,  or  paying  towards  the  support 
of  any  minister  of  any  one  of  the  aforesaid  persuasions, 
or  sects,  however  reguhirly  settled  in  liis  town,  provided 
he  cannot  conscientiously  atlend  upon  his  ministry,  and 
provided  there  be  any  other  minister  of  a  different  persua- 
sion, on  whose  ministry  he  does  attend.  This  is  a  consti- 
tutional provision  which  cannot  be  abrosjaled,  and  which 
proves  the  absolute  equality  of  all  Christian  churches.* 

To  this  catholick  principle  in  our  constitution  and  laws, 
there  is  but  one  exception,  and  that  is  contrary  to  the  genius 
of  our  government,  and  still  more  so  to  Ihe  spirit  of  our  reli- 
gion, the  exclusion  of  Ihe  Ronjan  Catholicks  from  the  pro- 
tection which  others  enjoy.  That  a  Catholick  should  be 
obliged  to  support  a  Protestant  teacher  as  well  as  his  own, 
is  a  most  grievous  imposition. 

But  it  may  be  said,  that  whatever  the  people,  or  the  civil 
ruler  may  have  done,  the  Scriptures  are  paramount  to  them 
all,  and  that  the  chief  rulers  of  the  church  derive  their 
authority  from  God. 

It  is  for  this  reason  I  shall  cite  further  passages  from  Dr. 
Mosheim,  as  to  what  the  Scripture  and  apostolick  usage 
have  settled  on  these  matters. 

*  In  the  case  of  Mr.  3Iurray  while  at  Gloucester,  the  supreme  court 
held,  that  to  entitle  him  to  recover  he  must  be  a  settled  minister.  But 
what  that  settlement  must  be,  and  that  it  does  not  require  an  ordination 
by  any  presbytery,  nor  the  aid  of  any  other  churches  in  that  ceremony, 
is  plain  by  the  case  of  Freeman  and  the  wardens  of  King's  Chapel,  vs. 
Pelhani.  The  Reverend  Dr.  Freer^ian  was  ordained  in  a  manner  truly 
jiI)ostolick.  He  was  set  apart  for  the  ministry  by  the  wardens  of  his 
own  church,  pursuant  to  a  vote  of  the  whole  society.  What  an  absur- 
dity then,  to  talk  of  the  absolute  necessity  of  a  Consociation  to  license 
ministers,  to  settle  the  mode  of  ordiuations,  and  to  exclude  improper 
men  from  the  ministry  ! ! 


S5 

In  connexion  with  the  above  quotation,  Dr.  Mosheira 
proceeds  to  say,  "  If  however  it  is  (rue,  that  the  Apostles 
*'  acted  by  divine  inspiration,  and  in  conformity  with  the 
"  commands  of  their  blessed  master,  and  this  no  Christian 
"  can  call  in  question  ;  then  it  follows,  that  that  form  of 
*<  government  which  the  primitive  Churches  borrowed  from 
*«  that  of  Jerusalem,  the  first  christian  assembly  established 
*'  by  the  Apostles  themselves,  must  be  esteemed  of  divine 
*'  aulhority.  But  from  this  it  would  be  wrong  to  conclude, 
"  that  such  a  form  is  immutable  ;  for  this  a  great  variety 
<*  of  €ven{s  might  render  impossible. 

"  In  those  early  times,  every  Christian  Church  consisted 
"  of  liie  people,  their  leaders  and  the  ministers  or  deacons, 
"  and  these  indeed  belong  essentially  to  every  religious  so- 
"  ciety.  The  People  were  undoubtedly  the  first  in  au- 
"  thority,  tor  the  Apostles  showed  by  their  own  example 
"  that  noihing  of  moment  was  to  be  carried  on  or  deterniin- 
"  ed  without  the  consent  of  the  assembly  ;  and  such  a 
*'  method  of  proceeding  was  both  prudent  and  necessary, 
*'  in  those  critical  times." 

"  It  was  therefore  the  assembly  of  the  People  which 
*'  chose  their  own  rulers  and  teachers,  or  received  them  by 
"  a  free  consent,  when  recommended  by  others."  "  The 
*'  same  people  rejected  or  confirmed  by  their  suffrages  the 
*'  laws  proposed  by  their  rulers  to  the  assembly ;  excom- 
"  municated  profligate  and  unworthy  members  of  the 
"  Church,  restored  the  penitent  to  their  privileges,  passed 
"judgment  upon  the  different  subjects  of  controversy  and 
"  dissension  that  arose  in  their  community,  examined  and 
"  decided  the  disputes  which  happened  between  the  elder* 
"  and  deacons,  and,  in  a  word,  exercised  all  the  authority 
"  which  belongs  to  such  as  are  invested  with  sovereign 
"  power." 

See  Mosheim,  Vol.  I.  p,  97,  98. 


36 

Thus,  according  lo  an  orthodox  Doctor  of  the  Church, 
Ihe  people  were  in  the  Apostolick  days  the  sole  depositaries 
of  sovereign  power  in  all  Church  matters.  The  reason  he 
assigns  for  this  deference  to  the  People  applies  with  more 
force  now,  and  that  is,  "  that  the  People  purchased  this 
privilege  by  supporfmg  the  teacheis,  the  inferiour  officers 
and  tlie  Poor." 

But  how  priiiciples  and  practices  are  changed  since  the 
days  of  tlie  Apostles!  By  imperceptible  encroachments, 
the  people  in  some  countries  have  been  stripped  of  all 
power ;  and  the  teachers,  who  were  originally  subject  to  the 
People,  have  become  their  masters,  and  keep  the  whole 
religious  community  in  absolute  subjection.  Our  ancestors 
threw  olTthis  yoke  and  resumed  their  primitive  authority, 
that  which  the  Apostles  gave  or  allowed  to  them. 

Dr.  Morse,  out  of  pure  love,  as  he  pretends,  to  the 
Church,  is  now  preparing  to  slip  on  this  yoke  again.  The 
proposed  plan  of  Consociation  annihilates  the  power  of  the 
people,  considered  as  distinct  from  the  Church,  at  a  stroke, 
they  not  being  so  much  as  mentioned  from  the  beginning  to 
the  termination  of  it. 

Dr.  Mosheim  does  not  leave  this  question  here  :  in  page 
105  of  the  same  volume  he  says,  *'  The  Churches  in  those 
early  times  ivere  entirely  independent,  none  of  them  sub- 
ject to  any  foreign  jurisdiction,  but  each  one  governed  by 
its  own  rulers  and  own  laws.  For  though  the  churches 
founded  by  the  Apostleslmd  this  particular  deference  shewn 
to  them,  that  they  were  consulted  in  doubtful  and  difficult 
cases  ;  yet  they  had  no  juridical  authority,  no  sort  of  supre- 
macy, nor  the  least  right  to  exact  laws  for  tliem."  Now  in- 
deed Dr.  Morse's  church,  though  not  founded  by  an  apostle 
that  we  have  ever  heard  of,  arrogates  to  itself  the  juridical 
authority,  a  supremacy  over  other  churches,  by  adopting  a 
new  constitution,  by  which  the  whole  legislative  and  judi- 
cial power  is  taken  from  each  separate  church,  and  given  to 


37 

the  Consociation.     I  shall  consider  hereafter  the   proposed 
assent  of  each  church  and  its  illusory  character. 

Our  old  and  venerable  Congregational  system  was  pre- 
cisely like  that,  which  Ur.  Mosheini  says  was  appointed 
and  practised  upon  by  the  Holy  Apostles.  It  is  this  which 
they  propose  to  destroy. 

I>r.  Mosheim  adds,  in  the  same  paragraph,  "  Nothing  is 
"  more  evident  than  the  perfect  equality  which  reigned 
"  among  the  primitive  churches;  nor  does  there  even  ap- 
"  pear  the  smallest  trace  of  that  Association  of  provincial 
"  churches,  from  which  councils  and  metropolitans  derive 
"  their  origin."     Mosheim,  Vol.  i.  p.  lO.i. 

Until  this  learned  orthodox  divine  shall  have  been  confut- 
ed by  those  who  procured  the  publication  of  his  works  here, 
we  may  assume  it  as  a  settled  proposition,  that  in  the  apos- 
tolick  age,  the  People,  that  is,  the  professing  christians  of 
every  distinct  church  and  society,  enjoyed  and  exercised 
all  ecclesiastical  powers,  even  those  of  settling  questions 
of  faith  and  disputes  in  the  church,  as  well  as  of  electing 
and  dismissing  their  teachers — that  there  were  no  associ- 
ations of  churches,  no  councils,  no  claim  of  judicial  power 
or  supremacy  in  any  bodies  of  christians. 

If,  then,  while  the  apostles  were  upon  earth,  who  must  be 
supposed  to  have  best  known  the  will  of  our  Saviour  and 
the  purposes  of  God,  no  such  jurisdiction  was  ever  claimed, 
what  pretence  can  now  exist,  that  such  dangerous  powers 
should  be  confided  to  fallible  and  erring  men,  stimulated  by 
passions,  uncontrolled  by  apostolick  authority,  and  unaid- 
ed by  divine  inspiration  ?  The  arguments  and  reasons  in 
favour  of  exact  conformity  and  uniform  discipline  were  in- 
finitely stronger  in  the  apostolick  age  than  they  are  at  the 
present  day. 

The  Church  was  surrounded  with  able,  learned  and  pow- 
erful foes,  who  were  ready  to  seize  upon  any  dissensions  as 


38 

to  matters  of  faith  Or  discipline,  in  order  to  bring  Christiani- 
ty into  discredit.  There  existed  also  in  that  age,  an  au- 
thority, to  which  an  appeal  might  be  made,  entitled  to  the 
highest  respect,  viz.  the  Apostles  themselves. 

Yet  these  luminaries  of  the  Church  gave  no  encourage- 
ment to  the  erection  of  general  tribunals  for  the  correction 
of  abuses,  and  for  the  establishment  of  uniform  rules  and  dis- 
cipline in  the  Church. 

If  we  are  asked,  to  what  sort  of  connexion  the  apostles 
alluded,  in  the  frequenllj  repeated  phrases  of  the  "  fellow- 
ship of  the  churches,"  we  answer,  an  intercourse  of  kind- 
ness, of  hospitality,  of  advice  ;  but  more  especially,  in  that 
age  of  persecution,  of  notice  when  dangers  approached, 
and  of  generous  aid  when  persecutions  prevailed. 

In  fact  a  strict  and  intimate  intercourse  of  the  churches 
might  have  been  at  that  time  necessary,  but  has  npw  become 
utterly  useless. 

In  the  present  day,  it  is  difScult  to  see  any  reason  why 
oneor  more  churches,  in  combination,  should  exercise  an 
authority  in  matters  of  faith  and  discipline  over  other 
churches.  We  have  no  longer  any  enemies  to  encounter  in 
the  European  or  American  world.  The  last  madman, 
Paine,  who  attacked  Christianity,  surely  did  not  produce  any 
effect  which  would  require  an  intimate  union  of  the  churches. 
The  whole  civilized  world  professes  to  be  Christian.  It  is 
to  be  sure  divided  into  an  hundred  sects.  There  is  no 
earthly  tribunal  to  decide  which  is  right.  If  you  once  de- 
part from  the  scriptural  and  aposfolick  principle,  that  each 
church  forms  an  whole,  and  has  a  right  to  interpret  the 
scriptures  for  itself,  it  is  difficult  to  see  any  point  at  which 
you  can  stop,  short  of  an  universal  head,  the  authority 
claimed  by  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  Shall  we,  the  Inde- 
pendents, be  ready  to  admit  the  authority  of  the  Arch- 
bishops and  convocations  of  Great  Britain  ?  And  if  we  arev 


39 

will  the  Baptists  admit  the  infallibility  of  our  Consociations  ? 
Or  will  even  the  haughty  Presbyters,  though  they  join  the 
orthodox  in  denouncing  those  who  differ  from  them  as  her- 
eticks,  will  they  submit  to  Dr.  Morse's  Consociation  ? 

The  only  pretence  for  these  tribunals  is,  the  Papal  or  Ro- 
mish one  of  conformity.  But  such  conformity  can  in  this 
case  reach  but  one  sect,  the  Congregationalists.  The 
others  will  still  go  on  in  what  we  call  their  errours.  It  is  not 
therefore  the  church  of  Christ  which  these  gentlemen 
would  reform  and  render  uniform.  It  is  a  single  sect ;  and 
the  only  consequence  would  be  to  break  that  sect  into  two 
or  more  divisions,  without  effecting  the  object  at  which 
they  aim.  I  trust  that  these  reverend  gentlemen  are  not  so 
far  gone,  as  to  contend,  that  the  Congregationalists  alone 
are  the  church  of  Christ ;  and  that  ihey  will  admit  some 
few  of  the  other  sects  to  a  small  participation  in  the  bless- 
ings of  the  gospel. 

This  however  is  not  the  place  to  press  these  considera- 
tions. My  object  in  this  chapter  was  simply  to  shew,  as  I 
believe  I  have  done,  that  the  early  church  admitted  of 
none  of  these  combinations,  associations,  or  consociations 
to  measure,  restrain,  and  limit  faith  ;  and  to  forge  and  invent 
causes  of  heresy,  and  of  confusion  and  controversy,  in  the 
church.  I  have  cited  but  one  authority,  but  that  is  ortho- 
dox, and  venerable,  and  published  and  circulated  in  this 
country  by  the  very  authors  of  this  system,  which  Dr.  Mo- 
sheim  declares  to  have  been  anknown  in  the  apostolick  age. 

If  we  are  asked,  where  is  the  evil  of  such  conspiracies, 
combinations  and  consociations,  even  if  not  authorized  by 
the  example  of  the  apostles  ?  I  answer,  first,  that  if  they 
are  not  authorized  by  scripture  or  by  law,  there  ought  to 
be  historical  and  practical  proofs  of  their  utility,  other- 
wise they  ought  not  to  be  adopted. 

But,  2dly.  That  all  such  associations  and  assumptions  of 
power  have  invariably  terminated  in  the  most  detestable   of 


40 

all  despotisms.  They  are  in  their  nature  an  oligarcliv,  or 
government  of  the  few.  As  their  power  is  ill-founded,  it 
can  be  preserved  only  by  violence.  These  considerations 
will  be  more  fully  developed  in  the  following  pages. 


CHAPTER  III. 

The  avowed  motives  of  the  jjrofessed  change  from  Con- 
gregationalism to  Consociationism,  {if  I  may  be  allow- 
ed to  coin  a  new  word  for  a  new  thing.) 

It  could  not  be  expected,  that  learned  Divines  would 
propose  an  entire  revolution  in  the  church,  without  bring- 
ing to  their  aid  all  the  talents  and  learning  of  their  party. 
It  accordingly  appears,  that  (his  great  body  had  this  topick 
under  consideration  for  a  year,  and  committed  it  to  some 
of  their  most  skilful  scribes,  to  invent  and  digest  arguments 
for  such  an  innovation.  We  are  authorised  to  suppose, 
therefore,  that  Dr.  Morse's  report  contains  their  strongest 
reasons  in  favour  of  this  measure  :  this  we  shall  now  pro- 
ceed to  examine. 

The  first  remark  to  which  this  report  gives  rise,  is  the 
consciousness  of  its  authors,  that  it  could  not  stand  upon 
its  own  merits.  A  manuscript  of  Dr.  Cotton  Mather  is 
brought  forward  with  as  much  parade,  as  if  he  had  been  an 
apostle.  This  so  exceedinglj  resembles  the  monastick  ar- 
tifices of  the  dark  ages,  of  hunting  up  the  barbarous  produc- 
tions of  some  canonized  saint,  to  authorize  some  new  usur- 
pation, or  add  sanctions  to  some  ancient  ones,  which  were 
not  respectable  in  themselves,  that  it  excites  our  jealousy, 
if  not  our  contempt. 

If  our  church  government  be  in  itself  so  radically  defec- 
tive, as  this  committee  pretend,  if  it  be  that  rotten,  misera- 


41 

ble,  and  Ineffectual  system,  which  they  would  shew  it  to  be, 
if  these  evils  have  been  perceived  from  the  days  of  Dr.  Cot- 
ton Malher  to  the  present  time,  the  fact  must  be  too  well 
known  to  all  the  Christian  societies,  to  require  Dr.  Ma- 
ther's authority  in  support  of  it. 

If  these  defects  were  not  so  generally  known,  and  were 
perceptible  only  to  the  enlightened  members  of  this  asso- 
ciation, still,  if  they  exist,  they  must  be  susceptible  of 
demonstration,  and  the  duty  of  the  committee  was  rather 
to  sla'e,  and  prove  them,  than  to  rely  on  this  obsolete  au- 
thority. 

But  the  greatest  ditTiculty  is,  that  we  can  perceive  no 
grounds  for  this  unlimited  deference  to  Dr.  Mather.  He  was 
respectable  for  a  very  credulous  age,  and  he  partook,  as 
largely  as  any  man,  of  the  imperfection  of  the  times.  But 
what  authority  ought  such  a  man  to  enjoy,  in  a  state  of  so- 
ciety, in  which  his  works  can  scarcely  be  read  without  a 
smile  at  his  weakness  and  prejudices  ?  We  have  nearly 
one  hundred  times  as  many  learned  men  at  present,  as  there 
were  in  that  period. 

The  second  remark  we  would  make  on  this  document, 
which  seems  to  be  the  citadel  of  the  revolutionists,  is,  that 
the  opinion  of  Dr.  Cotton  Mather,  according  to  his  own  con- 
fession, had  no  weight  with  his  contemporaries.  It  is  true, 
we  have  the  assertion  of  Dr.  Morse,  (and  it  is  the  only  au- 
thority given  for  it,)  that  the  convention  of  ministers  ap- 
proved the  project.  By  what  majority,  and  with  what  li- 
mitations or  amendments,  we  are  not  told.  It  would  be 
very  much  to  the  discredit  of  the  convention,  if  it  were 
true  ;  and  this  the  committee  cannot  deny,  because  they  tell 
us,  "  the  proposals  were  such  as  no  congregational  mlnis- 
<«  ter  could  consistently  recommend.^^  This  is  no  great 
praise   to  that  convention. 

6 


42 

But  as  one  hundred  years  have  elapsed,  and  Dr.  Ma- 
ther's project  has  slept  as  soundly  as  himself,  it  became  ne- 
cessary to  account  for  this  silence,  and  liiiis  it  is  feebly  and 
haltingly  admitted  by  tl»e  committee,  "  that  there  were 
"  some  considerable  persons  among  the  ministers,  and  the 
•*  laity,  who  thought  the  liberties  of  pai'ticidar  dwrches  to 
**  be  endangered  by  them.  In  deference  to  these,  the  pro- 
"  posals  were  never  prosecuted  beyond  the  bounds  of  mere 
*^  proposals.^*  In  other  words,  they  died  a  natural  death. 
They  were  rejected  with  indignation  by  the  clergy  and 
laitv,  in  1706.  This  fact  we  have  from  Dr.  Cotton  Ma- 
ther himself,  in  a  work  published  twenty  years  afterwards. 

What  does  this  ancient  precedent  prove  ?  That  some  men 
had  the  temerity  to  propose  the  abolition,  (for  it  was  such  in 
efTect)  of  the  congregational  form  of  government,  and  that 
it  was  rejected  as  fatal  to  the  liberties  of  the  church. 

Bu*  never  was  any  body  of  men  so  unfortunate  In  the 
choice  of  a  committee,  as  our  association.  Not  content 
with  bringing  forward  a. case,  which,  as  far  as  it  has  any 
authority,  goes  to  the  destruction  of  their  own  principles, 
they  make  the  most  dreadful  mistakes  in  the  management 
of  this  unlucky  case,  in  page  360  of  the  Panoplist,  vol.  xi. 
they  say,  "  that  the  proposals  of  Dr.  Mather  are  in  various 
"  respects  such,  as  that  in  their  opinion,  congregational  mi- 
"  nisters  cannot  consistently  recommend  or  approve  them." 
This  would  seem  to  a  layman,  to  be  a  co^ip  de  grace,  a 
fatal  blow  both  to  Dr.  Mather,  and  the  convention  which 
adopted  his  plan.  It  is  to  be  regretted,  that  the  committee 
had  not  stated  the  pails  of  Dr.  Mather's  project,  which  ap- 
peared to  them  so  exceptionable  ;  perhaps  we  should  have 
deemed  them  the  most  meritorious. 

But  it  is  singular,  we  must  all  confess,  that  so  much  defe- 
rence should  be  paid  to  a  project,  which  the  conunittee  are 
constrained  to  censure  in  such  se.ere  terms. 


43 

In  the  next  page  the  committee  say,  that  the}r  cannot  de- 
termine on  what  grounds  the  proposals  were  rejected, 
and  seem  rather  to  be  surprised  at  their  hard  fate.  Tins  is 
B  little  strange,  and  somewhat  contradictory  in  the  view 
of  a  layman. 

It  would  occur  to  us  as  probable,  that  some  "  of  the  va- 
"  rioiis  objections  which  rendered  it  impossible  for  a  con- 
"  gregafioiial  minister  either  to  recommend  oi  approve 
«  thera,"  might  be  presumed  to  have  occasioned  their 
failure. 

Now  we  appeal  to  all  rational  men,  and  request    them    to 
ask  themselves,  why    this   plan  of  Dr.   Cotton    Mather,   so 
treated  by  the  people  in  his   own    age,    utterly    neglected 
since,  and  finally  so  condemned  by   this  committee,  should 
be  made  the  chief  foundation  for  this   new  experiment,  and 
should  occupy  two  thirds  of  their  report  ?    Surel>  the  com- 
mittee will    experience  the  fate  denounced   on    those   who 
build  their  houses  on  the  sand.     It  is,  in  brief,  presumed  by 
the  comnitfee,  that  a  project  which  had  no  countenance  in 
the  age  in  ?vhich  it  was   produced,  nor  with  the   many    ge- 
nerations which  have  succeeded  it,  will    acquire   an   impor- 
tance and  influence  from  its  antiquity,  which  its  merit  could 
not  secureforit,  and  that   we   shall    be    disposed   to  adopt 
a  pUm  of  ecclesiastical  tyranny,  which  our  ancestors  reject- 
ed with  disdain. 

The  arguments  of  the  committee,  independent  of  Dr. 
Mather's  rejected  authority,  may  be  divided  into  three 
classes,  all  of  which  we  shall  minutely  consider. 

1st.  "  General,  loose,  declamatory  assumptions,  or  as- 
"  sertions,  vague,  indefinite,  and  in  many  cases  incompre- 
«  hensible."  In  other  terms,  Panoplist  language  and 
argument. 

2d.  Three  specifick  objections  to  the  present  plan  of 
church  government. 


44 

3dlj.  Scriptural    arguments,  taken   from    Dr.  Increase* 
Mather's  Ratio  Disciplinae. 

As  to  the  first,  "  The  loose,  declamatory  assertions." 

They  are  of  the  character  of  those  which  follow.  "  That 
"  there  is  a  visible  decline  in  the  order,  discipline,  and 
"  fiiiitftilness  of  (lie  churches."  This  complaint,  they  ad- 
mit, was  the  prevailing  one  also  in  1706,  one  hundred  and 
ten  years  since,  and  has  been  the  prevailing  one  with  cer- 
tain men,  in  all  ages  of  the  church.  It  is  like  the  usual 
complaint  against  the  seasons,  the  scarcity  of  money,  and 
the  general  profligacy  of  the  age  in  which  we  live.  What 
peculiar  evidence,  or  proofs  the  committee  have  on  this 
point,  we  know  not.  We  are  persuaded  of  the  contrary. 
This  part  of  our  country  is  unquestionably  as  correct  in  its 
morals,  more  disposed  to  support  pubiick  worship,  and  as 
well  inclined  to  attend  the  exercises  of  religion,  to  respect 
and  honour  its  ministers,  and  to  promote  all  pubiick  institu- 
tions for  the  advancement  and  spread  of  Christianity,  as  it 
has  been  in  any  former  age. 

The  clergy  are  much  more  learned  and  respected  than 
they  were  a  century  ago.  The  affectation  of  external 
sanctity  has,  it  is  true,  given  place  to  more  natural  and 
less  Pharisaical  and  assuming  manners.  Men  think  they 
can  be  pious  without  being  hypocritical. 

There  is,  in  short,  all  the  ditference  between  this  coun- 
try now  and  at  that  period,  that  will  be  found  in  Great 
Britain,  between  that  nation  under  Praise  God  Barebones' 
Parliament,  and  that  same  people  printing  and  dispersing  as 
they  now  do,  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  one  Hundred  Tongues. 
Then  to  be  sure,  a  Surplice  was  a  subject  of  Horrour,  and 
a  Form  of  Prayer,  a  Liturgy,  "a  damned  work  of  Satan." 
Now  we  see  a  churchman  and  dissenter,  an  archbishop  and 
ruling  elder,  combining  their  efforts,  without  dissensions  or 

*  Should  be  Cotton  Mather. 


45 

difficulties,    to   spread    the    glad    tidings   of  the    Gospel 
throughout  the  habitable  globe. 

The  second  general  complaint  is, 

"  That  in  the  introduction,  discipline,  and  dismission  of 
ministers,  the  Churches  are  left  each  to  its  own  discretion, 
without  any  acknowledged   uniform  rule  to  govern  them." 

And  pray  is  this  an  evil?  Is  it  unreasonable,  that  those 
who  support,  and  are  bound  to  hear  a  preacher,  should  have 
a  voice,  and  the  only  voice  in  introducing  him  ?  Is  it  just 
cause  of  complaint,  that  those  who  look  up  to  their  pastor 
as  the  greatest  earthly  blessing,  who  wait  anxiously  for  him 
to  soothe  their  sorrows,  and  strengthen  their  hearts  on  the 
bed  of  sickness,  who  look  up  to  him  as  the  guide  of  them- 
selves and  their  children,  in  the  narrow  path  to  heaven — 
ought  it  to  be  a  subject  of  complaint,  that  such  a  man,  who 
is  to  be  united  to  them  for  life,  should  be  the  object  of  their 
choice,  and  thai  their  preference  should  not  be  disturbed 
by  some  rival  priests,  who  should  insist  upon  his  subscrib- 
ing to  their  articles  of  faith  ? 

Yet  this  is  one  of  the  main  articles  of  complaint.  It  is 
as  unreasonable  and  preposterous,  as  if  these  gentlemen 
should  assume  to  the  Church  the  power  of  deciding  who 
should  or  should  not  intermarry  in  private  life. 

The  power  thus  claimed  by  Dr.  Morse  of  interfering, 
either  with  the  settlement  or  dismision  of  a  minister,  we  have 
shewn  in  our  first  chapter,  was  not  suggested  in  the  Apos- 
tolick  age,  and  in  the  second,  we  made  it  equally  apparent, 
that  such  a  power  was  rejected  and  denied  by  the  Congre- 
gational Churches. 

The  Committee  then  call  the  attention  of  the  publick 
most  solemnly  "<o  the  evils  which  affect  Churches  and 
ministers  in  their  ptiblick  character  and  in  their  relation 
to  each  other. ^^ 

As  it  has  been  seen,  that  in  the  Apostolick  age  there 
were  no  relations  between  one  Church  and  another,  except 


46 

those  which  exist  between  all  Christians,  those  of  kindness 
and  urbanity,  we  should  have  expected  on  this  head  lo  see 
some  elucidation  of  these  relations  and  duties,  as  well  as 
the  manner  in  which  they  had  been  broken  and  disregarded. 
We  look  in  vain.  The  Consociation  Cause  will  not  admit 
of  precision,  or  palpable  and  obvious  facts  and  statements. 
We  have  indeed  much  conunonplace  declamation,  such  as, 
"  that  all  Churches  are  members  of  one  kingdom,  subject 
to  one  king,  partakers  of  one  spirit,  and  enlisted  in  the  same 
cause,  and  are  frequently  called  to  promote  the  same  inter- 
est." We  are  even  pretty  audaciously,  and  if  any  other 
persons  were  concerned,  I  should  say  pretty  impiously 
told,  that  the  relation  existing  among  Churches  was  consti- 
tuted by  God  liimself!  ! 

Let  us  examine  this  rhapsody  which  the  Committee  have 
subslituled  for  argument.  All  Christendom,  that  is,  all  who 
believe  in  the  Christian  dispensation,  belong  to  onespirilual 
kingdom,  are  subject  to  one  king,  and  partakers  of  one  spirit; 
Catholick  and  protestant,  episcopalian  and  dissenter,  are 
equally  the  subjects  of  the  foregoing  remarks,  unless  the 
Committee  contend  that  the  Church  of  England,  and  the 
Baptists  and  Catholicks  are  not  Christians,  and  aie  there- 
fore not  subjects  of  the  saiue  king.  If  then  these  terms 
or  phrases  have  any  bearing  (and  they  have  but  very  little, 
for  in  our  judgment  they  are  mere  sounds  without  meaning) 
but  if  they  have  any  bearing,  they  go  to  prove  the  neces- 
sity of  a  perfect  conformity  in  all  sects.  They  draw  the 
inference,  that  there  should  be  but  one  Church,  and  one 
form  of  government  for  all  the  Christian  world. 

This  is  precisely  the  Roman  Calholick  doctrine.  If  one 
or  more  churches  convened  as  in  Council,  Synod  or  Coiiso- 
ciation  have  a  right  to  settle  matters  of  faith  ;  if  there  be 
any  human  power  since  the  Apostolick  age  competent  to 
this,  the  pretensions  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  are  beyond  all 


47 

limits  of  comparison  the  first.     They  have  prescription  and 
antiquity,   and  numbers  on   their   side.     They   have  been 
adinided  by  the  Christian  world,  for  six  or  seven  times  the 
number  of  a^es  that    the  protestant   form  of   religion   has 
existed.     There  are  plausible  grounds  in  scripture  for  his 
authority.     There  are  solid  ones  in  favour  of  submission 
to  one  despot  rather  than  to  many.     The  distance  of   his 
residence,  his  independence,  hh  consequent  impartiality, 
his  freedom  from  those  petty  rivalships  and  personal  pas- 
sions, from  which  the  best  men  more  nearly  in  contact  are 
not  exempt,  these,  and  a  thousand  other  reasons,  give  his 
claim  a  preference  to  those  of  any  human  tribunal.     Let  it 
not  be  pretended,  that  I  am  an  advocate  for  the  authority 
of  the  see  of  Rome.     I  deny  all  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction. 
I  think  conscientiously,  that  it  is   the  most  monstrous  and 
wicked  of  all  usurpations.     It  is  sinning  against  all  light, 
to  assume  the  smallest    control   over  the    consciences  of 
men    under    colour   of  scriptural    authority.     The    whole 
scriptures  are  against  it,  an<l  we  shall  see  presently  on  what 
wretched  foundation  these  pretensions  repose. 

If  it  be  said,  that  our  ancestors,  the  first  Independents, 
in  direct  opposition  to  their  own  principles,  exercised  a  full 
share  of  spiritual  tyranny,  I  answer,  this  is  a  truth  ever  to 
be  lamented.  I  was  never  among  the  admirers  of  onr  fore- 
fathers without  qualification.  They  had  indeed  great  vir- 
tues, but  they  had  also  great  defects.  And  there  is  not  a 
man  among  those  who  praise  them,  that  would  exchange 
the  present  state  of  society,  for  that  of  this  country  in  the 
first  century  of  its  settlement. 

Reformation  is  never  perfect  at  once.  Some  of  our 
weaknesses  will  still  adhere  to  us,  but,  blessed  be  the  God 
of  all  mercy,  he  has  permitted  us  to  enjoy  a  degree  of  light 
and  liberty  which  onr  ancestors  never  knew,  when  the  (rue 
spirit  of  the  first  reformation,  and  the  better  and  more  per- 


48 

feet  principles  of  (he  second,  that  of  the  Independents,  are 
about  to  have  their  full  operation.  Such  an  operalion  they 
will  have,  in  fhe  entire  freedom  of  the  separate  churches, 
and  in  an  universal  Catholick  spirit,  unless  it  shall  be  dis- 
turbed by  ecclesiastical  tribunals  ;  which  have,  in  all  ages, 
been  the  bane  of  Christianity. 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  consider  secondly, 

The  three  specifick  reasons,  assigned  by  the  learned 
committee,  for  abolishing  the  Cambridge  Platform  and  estab- 
lishing a  coercive  ecclesiastical  court. 

The  first  is,  "a  prevailing  neglect  of  discipline  towards 
offending  members  of  churches,  and  a  difficulty  of  going 
through  a  regular  course  of  discipline  when  attempted." 

It  is  difficult  to  perceive,  in  what  manner  the  proposed 
consociations  will  strengthen  the  power  of  separate  churches 
over  their  own  members. 

It  is  alleged,  indeed,  that  every  church  to  this  end  re- 
quires the  aid  of  sister  churches.  This  is  broad  assertion. 
The  only  means  of  discipline  in  the  power  of  the  church,  in 
a  free  country,  are  admonition,  penance,  and  excommuni- 
cation. These  a  single  church  can  effectually  exercise,  or 
inflict,  as  well  without  as  with  the  aid  of  associated  churches. 
Indeed  much  better,  because  there  is  no  appeal. 

Something  is  intimated  of  the  delinquents  obtaining  sup- 
port from  other  churches.     This  also  is  mere  declamation. 

Why  state  chimerical  fears?  Is  it  a  practical  evil  of  any 
extent?  Did  any  church  ever  expel  a  member  for  lewd- 
ness, or  inremperance,  or  profanity,  and  has  the  excluded 
member  been  received  and  encouraged  by  a  sister  church  ? 

We  believe,  and  trust,  never.  It  is  a  mere  pretence. 
But  if  it  be  intended,  as  it  would  seem,  to  erect  these  con- 
sociations to  try  the  lay  brethren  who  offend,  if  the^  are  to 
examine  into  and  decide  spiritual  offences,  they  will  have 
labour  and  reward  enough. 


49 

Connecticut  will  find  a  new  and  profitable  employment 
for  her  numerous  sons,  and  we  shall  be  thronged  with  a  host 
of  theological  lawyers,  eager  to  prove  their  zeal  and  inge- 
nuity against  the  reprobate  citizens  of  Massachusetts. 

This  is  no  sneer.  It  is  sober  conviction.  When  we 
see  it  gravely  and  seriously  urged,  that  the  churches  have 
not  sufficient  power  to  enforce  ecclesiastical  discipline,  that 
a  great  and  general  court  of  ministers  must  be  called  to  try 
laymen,  and  to  punish  them  for  heresies  and  other  sins,  we 
own  we  should  shudder,  if  we  did  not  believe,  that  the  good 
sense  and  temper  of  our  people  would  induce  them  to  spurn 
at  such  a  suggestion.  Yet  such  an  one  is  made,  as  will  be 
seen  by  the  prefixed  report. 

The  second  specifick  objection  to  the  old  Platform  is, 
"that  there  is  no  regular  and  acknowledged  method  in  which 
Congregational  churches  can  exercise  a  christian  watch  and 
care  over  each  other." 

"A  Christian  church,  it  is  added,  may  apostatise  from 
the  common  faith,  and  fall  into  disorders  totally  incompati- 
ble with  the  christian  character." 

Now  this  is  very  plausible  to  vulgar  ears,  but  what  does 
it  mean  ?  Is  there  any  standard  to  decide  who  does  apos- 
tatise ^  What  IS  the  common  faith?  Is  it  the  faith  of  Ro- 
man Catholicks,  or  of  Lutherans,  or  Calvinists,  or  Indepen- 
dents, or  Methodists,  or  Baptists  ? 

And  who  is  to  decide  when  a  whole  church  has  aposta- 
tized? And  what  the  eflfect  of  such  a  decision?  Who  has 
the  keys  of  heaven,  now  they  are  wrested  from  St.  Peter? 
In  what  part  of  scripture  is  this  power  given  to  Dr.  Morse's 
consociated  churches,  or  any  other  self-formed  ecclesiasti- 
cal tribunal  ? 

Let  these  gentlemen  shew  us  one  instance  of  consociation 
in  the  scriptures.     We  shall  prove  hereafter  there  are  none. 

r 


50 

Suppose  tills  plan  in  operation.  A  case  of  alleged 
heresy  is  brought  before  this  a\ip,u3t  tribunal.  The  mem- 
bers are  pjcclsely  divided.  Wljich  side  is  right  ?  Is  (lie 
truth  in  donbt?  What  is  the  remedy?  Call  in  one  or  two 
other  ronsociafions,  say  the  committee  ;  thai  is,  miiMiply 
the  means  of  confusion  and  discord,  and  you  will  olfain 
peace  and  truth.  The  new  body  is  torn  by  like  dissen- 
sions. What  then  are  you  lo  do?  Appeal  to  (he  Grand 
Association  of  Massachusetts.  But  suppose  the  Grand 
Association  should  decide  the  case,  and  the  refractory 
church  should  refuse  to  submit,  what  is  the  next  measure? 
To  withhold  communion.  This  any  separate  church  can 
now  do,  and  oflen  undertakes  to  do,  without  any  other 
authority,  than  its  own  natural  powers  and  rights. 

This  obliges  me  to  notice  a  very  extraordinary  as- 
sertion of  this  committee,  that  for  a  single  church  to 
refuse  to  hold  communion  with  another  "is  offering  vio- 
lence to  decorum  ;"  "  that  if  a  single  church  should  refuse 
to  hold  fellowship,  it  would  lend  to  introduce  ecclesiastical 
despotism  and  anarchy." 

What !  have  we  forgotten  the  memorable  case  of  Mr. 
Codman,  a  man  of  excellent  feelings,^  but  who  has  been,  we 
regret  to  say  it,  induced  to  join  this  high  ecclesiastical 
party?  Was  he  guilty  of  "introtiucing  despotism  and  anar- 
chy?" 

That  gentleman  was  persuaded  to  withhold  communion 
with  many  associated  churches,  against  the  will  of  a  majori- 
ty of  his  people.  An  ecclesiastical  council  was  called.  ^  A 
full  hearing  was  had,  and  all  the  orthodox  clergy  on  the  trial 
declared,  tnat  he  had  a  right  so  to  do. 

Will  it  be  said,  that  refusing  to  exchange  wilh  his  bre- 
thren of  the  same  association  was  not  throwing  them  out  of 
comm\mion  ?  It  not  only  necessarily  includes  (hat  power, 
but  much  more.  It  includes  the  right  to  deprive  the  peo- 
ple of  his  charge  of  their  accustomed  privileges. 


51 

Acts  of  fellowship  of  churches  are,  assisting  in  case  of 
the  sickness,  deafh,  or  absence  of  a  pastor,  at  ordinaiions, 
anJ  in  coiinciis.  Surely  it  is  ludicrous  to  say,  that  you 
stiil  hold  coninunlon  and  fellowship  wi(h  a  church,  when 
you  will  not  periuil  ils  psslor  to  perform  ihe  ordinary  ser- 
vices ot  the  desk,  and  refuse  him  admission  to  your  pulpit. 

Tiie  decision  of  the  orthodox  part  of  the  council   in  that 

meuiorable  case,  has  proved,  that  the  Cambridge   Platform 

needs  no  amendment  on  this  ground,  since  every  pastor  has 

the  power  against  Ihe  will  of  his  07Vii  people  to  withhold 

fellowship  with  any,  and  ail  other  churches,  at  his  pleasure. 

The  Ijiird  specifick  objeclion  of  the  committee  to  the  old 
system  of  government  is, 

"  The  want  of  a  settled  effectual  method  of  calling  minis- 
ters to  account  for  immorality  and  errour,  and  of  protecting 
them  against  calumny  and  injustice." 

This  reason  will  be  found,  on  examination,  to  be  as  little 
availing  as  either  of  the  others. 

The  only  persons,  who  have  any  interest  or  right  to  call 
a  pastor  to  account,  are  his  own  parishioner-?. 

It  would  be  preposterous  lo  suppose,  that  any  parish 
would  be  so  corrupt  as  to  retain  a  clergyman  notorious  for 
his  immorality.  If  such  a  case  could  be  supposed,  any 
church,  in  connexion  with  such  a  reprobate  society,  would 
be  fully  justified  in  withdrawing  from  any  communion  with 
it.  As  to  errours,  if  they  are  such  as  to  give  offence  to  his 
own  flock,  there  is  now  a  competent  remedy. 

The  parties  aggrieved  have  a  right  to  insist  on  a  mutual 
council.  If  the  members  of  such  council  are  divided,  the 
equitable  presumption  is,  that  it  is  no  errour  ;  or  if  any, 
of  an  immaterial  nature. 

If  either  party  refuses  to  unite  In  a  council,  the  party- 
complaining  has  a  right  to  call  an  ex  parte  council,  the  result 
of  which  is  so  far  obligatory,  that  the  party  who  conceives 


S2 

itself  benefited  hy  it,  may  legally  act  in  conformity  to  it, 
and  will  be  upheld  by  the  courts  of  law. 

But  the  learned  committee,  aware  of  the  perfect  nature 
of  the  present  remedy,  have  endeavoured  to  render  mutual 
councils,  and  the  present  mode  of  trial,  odious  and  con- 
temptible. 

"We  have,"  say  they,  "no  effectual  mode  of  keeping 
improper  men  out  of  the  ministry.'*  This  is  a  departure 
from  the  question,  which  was,  not  whether  improper  men 
could  be  kept  out,  but  whether  they  could  be  punished 
after  they  were  admitted.  But  this  complaint  is  as  idle  as 
the  other.  No  man,  by  the  platform,  can  be  ordained  with- 
out the  approbation  of  a  council.  It  is  true,  the  parish  set- 
tling a  minister,  may  send  to  whatever  churches  it  chooses. 
But  is  not  this  a  natural  privilege,  and  are  not  the  powers 
and  rights  of  all  churches,  once  regularly  gathered,  equal? 

Bui,  says  Dr.  Morse,  "  the  friends  of  ecclesiastical  order 
are  often  in  the  minority  at  ordinations,  what  can  they  then 
do  ?"  So  it  would  seem  that  the  minority  are  to  govern, 
provided  they  are  the  true  saints.  "  What  influence,"  the 
committee  dolefully  inquire,  "what  influence  can  they 
have  in  an  ordaining  council,  when  there  is  a  majority  de- 
termined to  outvote  them?" 

We  answer,  the  same  which  the  minority  always  have  in 
civil  affairs.  They  must  submit  and  be  modest  enough  to 
wait  until  the  minds  of  men  shall  change.  This,  the  com- 
mittee will  not  do.  It  would  seem  therefore,  that  this  pro- 
ject is  to  give  the  minority,  in  certain  districts,  a  rightto 
control  the  majority.  This  is  indeed  either  an  ingenuous 
or  unguarded  confession,  fully  displaying  the  extent  and 
objects  of  this  project. 

Let  us  now  hear  \]\e  legal  objections  to  the  present  ad- 
mirable system  of  mutual  councils. 

The  committee  premise,  "that  no  objection  can  arise  in 
their  view  to  the  grand  principle  of  mutual  councils,  of 


53 

the  justice  and  importance  of  that  principle  they  are  fully 

convinced." 

This  appears  to  us  one  Of  those  extraordinary  subtleties, 

which  ought  to  have  vanished  with  the  pupils  at  St.  Omers. 
To  be  in  favour  of  a  "  Grand  principle,  and  convinced  of 

its  justice  and  importance,"  and  yet  proceed  to  decry  it  as 
absurd,  irrelevant,  weak,  and  ridiculous,  is  what  a  layman 

cannot  comprehend. 

It  is  not  to  mutual  councils,  say  the  committee,  we  ob- 
ject, but  to  the  mode  of  constituting  them  !  Now  the  mode 
of  constituting  them  is  what  renders  them  mutual,  and  con- 
tains their  only  merit. 

We  beg  the  reader  not  to  laugh  indiscreetly,  when  we 
state  the  mode  in  which  mutual  councils  are  proposed  to  be 
improved. 

The  consociation  is,  by  a  standing  covenant,  which  may 
endure  for  several  centuries,  to  be  constituted  the  council, 
and  is  therefore  to  be  called  mutual!  !  Thus,  according  to 
the  same  reasoning,  the  Supreme  Court  is  a  mutual  tribunal, 
though  one  party  is  always  forced  there  against  his  consent, 
it  is  an  arbitration,  because  by  the  compact,  called  the 
constitution,  that  tribunal  was  provided,  and  therefore  the 
Judges  are  mutually  chosen!  To  such  subtleties  do  these 
gentlemen  descend. 

Our  notions  of  mutual  councils  are  very  different ;  they 
are  in  effect  references  or  arbitrations.  Their  merit  or  value 
consists  in  their  having  the  direct  confidence  and  assent  of 
the  parties.  If,  in  questions  of  property,  references  are 
sometimes  liable  to  objections,  they  seem,  in  ecclesiastical 
affairs,  to  be  the  only  remedy  which  the  principles  of  our 
religion  admit.  They  are  a  'peace-making  tribunal  in  their 
character.  Theology,  and  religious  controversies,  which 
seem  to  repel  forensick  accuracy,  require  a  more  popular 
mode  of  decision  ;  it  is  therefore  highly  proper  that  friend* 
should  be  called  in  to  heal  the  breach  without  scandal  to 


54 

the  church.  The  objections  to  them,  urged  by  the  com 
raiftce,  are  derogalory  to  our  clergv.  Thej  would  prove, 
that  the  ministers  of  religion  are  at  this  day  as  \iolent,  as 
unjust,  as  partial,  as  (hey  were  in  the  worst  ages  of  the 
church,  or  as  the  worst  men  in  society :  that  they  will 
•acrifice  their  consciences  and  their  God  to  their  party 
views.  Heaven  forbid,  thai  Dr.  Morse's  picture  of  them 
sliould  bear  any  resemblance  to  (he  original.  We  think  it 
a  calumny,  and  we  fully  believe,  that  in  mutual  councils 
most  clergymen  will  dare  to  be  honest  in  spite  oi  the 
strongest  of  all  prejudices,  those  of  religious  sects. 

But  our  principal  reply  to  this  objection  is,  fn  w  hat  man- 
ner will  consociations  remedy  this  evil?  Will  there  be  no 
party  or  sectarian  prejudices  within  those  tribunals?  Will 
the  same  class  of  men,  who  are  represented  as  so  partial  in 
mutual  councils,  become  perfectly  fair  as  soon  as  they  are 
convened  in  consociations  ? 

Or — (for  here  we  probe  this  gangrened  wound  to  the 
bottom,) — is  it  expected  and  intended,  that  the  consocia- 
tions shall  consist  only  of  men  of  one  mode  of  thinking  ? 
The  whole  argument  of  the  committee  proceeds  on  this 
presumption. 

The  y?rsY  s-pecifick  objection  to  mutual  councils,  which 
the  coiumiitee  urge,  is,  "  that  they  are  not  permanent 
bodies."  This  is  their  excellence.  Referees  are  not  per- 
manent bodies,  but  they  are  the  only  fit  tribunal  for  all  cases 
affecting  honour,  character,  conscience,  and  which  involve 
those  equitable  considerations  which  the  law  cannot  reach: 
Make  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal  permanent,  and  all  history, 
assures  us,  that  whether  it  be  a  college  of  cardinals,  or  a 
kirk,  a  court  of  high  commission,  or  an  apostolick  office, 
an  inquisition  or  a  presbytery,  it  will  be  a  despotism. 

The  reason  is  very  simple.  The  codes  and  rules  of  such 
tribunals  must  be  so  vague,  they  must  depend  so  much  on 
that  erring  guide,  the  couscieuce  ;  are  capable  of  so  little 

) 


fi5 

precision,  and  wjfhal  have  so  powerful,  yet  deceptive  a 
pretext  for  zeai,  as  (he  promotion  of  (he  will  of  God,  which 
every  zealot  cons(rue9  to  he  his  own  will,  that  the}"  always 
have,  and  always  must,  terminate  in  tyranny.  Heaven  for- 
bid, that  we  should  any  of  us,  live  to  see  (he  day  in  which  • 
the  Reverend  author  of  (his  report,  or  any  other  Reverend 
Doctor  should  be  promoted  to  a  permanent  seat  in  a  jjer- 
manent  body,  wi(h  the  powers  they  propose  to  assimie,  to 
wit,  "  To  exercise  stated  and  confiiuied  inspection  over 
ministers  and  churches,  to  prevent  ordination  when  they  see 
fit,  to  bring  lay  brethren  to  account,  and  to  try,  depose  and 
for  ever  disqualify  ministers  whom  they  may  decide  to  be 
ofTenders  in  morals  or  faith." 

This  is  all — !  !  my  brethren,  and  it  does  not  much  ex- 
ceed the  enormous  powers  claimed  by  the  worst  ecclesiasti- 
cal tyrants  which  the  dark  ages  produced 

The  second  alleged  objection  against  mutual  councils  is, 
"  that  they  may  be  evaded  by  the  offender's  refusal  to  join 
in  the  choice  of  them  or  to  submit  to  their  decisions." 

This  is  partly  evasive  and  partly  untrue.  If  an  offender 
refuses  to  join  in  choosing  a  mutual  council,  the  remedy  by 
ex  parte  council  is  open  and  perfect.  This  portion  of  the 
objection  is  therefore  evasive. 

If  he  does  join  in  choosing  a  mutual  council,  it  is  untrue 
that  he  can  successfully  resist  its  decisions.  The  other 
party  can  force  him  to  submit  to  them,  if  such  other  party 
be  a  parish,  by  dismissing  the  pastor  ;  if  a  pastor,  by  suing 
for  and  recovering  his  salary. 

3d.  Objection.  "Mutual  councils,"  say  the  committee, 
*'have  no  code  to  govern  their  proceedings."  Nor  have 
referees  ;  ye\  the  latter  mode  of  trial  has  existed  for  a 
thousand  years,  and  is  still  a  favourite  one.  But  what  oc- 
casion is  there  for  codes  and  rules  and  legal  forms,  v.hen 
six  or  eight  clergymen  assemble  to  heal  a  breach  in  the 
church  of  Christ?  Did  St.  Paul  send  any  code  of  rules  to 


56 

the  Romans  or  Corinthians,  or  is  there  any  pretence  that 
there  were  proctors,  or  doctors,  or  any  canon  law  among 
the  early  churches  ?  We  know  there  were  none. 

Fourthly.  It  is  objected,  that  "  Mutual  councils  may  be 
multiplied  without  number."  We  have  only  to  say,  this  is 
not  the  fact.  If  they  may  sometimes  be  divided,  so  too 
may  a  jury,  so  will  be  often  this  proposed  sovereign  remedy, 
the  Consociations,  if  they  are  fairly  and  honourably  com- 
posed. It  is  impossible  men  should  always  agree  on  reli- 
gious subjects,  unless  it  shall  please  God  to  shower  down 
more  of  his  gracious  spirit  than  any  divines  now  possess. 
There  are  now  probably  several  hundred  open  avowed  sects, 
and  several  thousand  various  and  discordant  opinions. 

Lastly,  It  is  objected,  that  *'  mutual  councils  are  consti- 
tuted in  a  manner  unfavourable  to  impartiality,  to  unanimity 
and  justice,  and  not  calculated  to  give  satisfaction  to  the 
pariies." 

We  admit  they  are  unfavourable  to  unanimity,  and  while 
christians  see  but  as  through  a  glass  darkly,  this  is  an  ex- 
cellence ;  for  there  never  can  be  unanimity  in  our  present 
state  of  knowledge,  without  improper  coercion.  As  to  jus- 
tice and  impartiality,  we  think  the  old  councils  are  calculated 
to  be  the  fairest  possible  tribunals. 

With  regard  to  their  tendency  to  give  satisfaction,  we 
doubt  whether  if  the  ofTender  should  concur  with  the  conso- 
ciation in  doctrine,  the  parish  who  should  complain  would 
be  better  satisfied  with  the  new  tribunals  than  with  mutual 
councils.  If  for  example,  Dr.  Morse's  parish  should  gather 
sufficient  courage  to  insist  on  his  doing  justice  to  Miss 
Adams,  or  should  complain  of  his  occupations  in  book- 
making,  and  creed-making,  as  inconsistent  with  his  parochial 
duties,  we  doubt  whether  they  would  be  better  satisfied  to 
submit  the  case  to  an  orthodox  consociation,  than  to  have  a 
voice  in  the  choice  of  judges. 


57 

In  a  word,  we  admit  that  the  consociation  would  be  more 
uniform,  more  vigilant,  more  severe  ;  we  have  n6  doubt 
they  would  have  code  upon  code  so  vohiminous,  that  none 
but  the  adepts  could  understand  them  ;  but  as  to  justice 
and  imparlialitj,  (hey  would  never  be  considered  as  wel- 
come guests,  whenever  sectarian  questions  and  prejudices 
should  interfere.  AVhile  we  have  no  doubt,  that  Channing 
and  Thacher,  cum  multis  cdiis,  would  be  struck  off  the  list 
of  christian  pastors  as  "  corrupt  and  heretical,"  Dr.  Morse, 
upon  complaint,  would  be  acquit  led  of  all  censure,  and  it 
would  be  decided,  that  his  conduct  to  Miss  Adams  had  been 
marked  by  christian  charity  and  tenderness,  that  his  re- 
-fusal  to  abide  by  the  award  of  referees  "had  been  dictated 
by  justice  and  honour,  that  his  character  was  truly  aposto- 
lick,  and  that  they  hoped  he  would  inherit  a  crown  of  glory, 
and  take  his  seat  between  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul. 

It  is  on  this  subject,  that  the  committee  of  the  grand  as- 
sociation undertake  to  run  a  parallel  between  the  proceed- 
ings at  common  law,  and  those  under  the  canon  law  in  this 
state.  They  say  the  evil  in  the  churches  is  as  great  under 
the  Cambridge  Platform,  as  it  would  be  in  society  if  the 
courts  of  law  were  like  mutual  councils,  temporary  bodies. 
They  ask  "  what  mischiefs  would  ensue  if  the  criminal  in 
common  life  had  the  right  to  choose  his  judges?"  And  is 
it  come  to  this?  Is  it  avowed  by  these  reverend  divines, 
that  ministers  are  to  be  put  on  a  fooling  with  cut  throats 
and  pickpockets,  and  shoplifiers  ?  Are  ecclesiastical  of- 
fences of  the  same  deep  moral  dye  as  those  which  courts  of 
criminal  jurisdiction  are  empowered  to  restrain  and  punish? 
Are  any  of  our  clergy  charged  with  such  enormous  crimes  ? 
It  is  new  to  us. 

If  not,  if  the  offences  charged  on  them  are  only  er- 
rours,  however  great,  errours  only  in  opinion,  is  there  not  a 
material  distinction  in  the  nature  of  the  offence  and  the 
urgency  of  the  remedy  ? 

8 


58 

The  parallel  is  a  strange  and  illiberal  one.  In  what  re- 
spect will  the  consociations  resemble  the  supreme  judicial 
court?  How  will  they  remedy  the  present  defects?  Are 
they,  like  the  courts  of  law,  appointed  by  one  head?  Are 
they  independent  in  their  salaries  and  in  their  tenure  of  of- 
fice ?  Not  so. — They  are  the  mere  creatures  of  the  choice 
of  every  parish,  however  ignorant  or  well  informed,  and  are 
often  chosen  by  small  majorities. 

No,  if  we  must  alter  the  Platform  in  order  to  accommo- 
date these  gentlemen  wilh  a  permanent  and  stable  body 
like  the  courts  of  law,  let  us  render  the  resemblance  per- 
fect— let  us  have  some  tolerable  security  and  chance  of 
talents  and  impartiality.  Let  us  have  a  court  for  ecclesi- 
astical cases,  composed  of  three  laymen  and  two  clerks. 
Let  fhem  be  appointed  by  the  executive,  and  removeable  on 
address  of  the  Legislature.  But  to  give  Mr.  Codman's  little 
parish  an  equal  voice  in  deciding  upon  Mr.  Channing's  or- 
thodoxy wilh  his  own,  which  is  three  times  as  large,  is  pre- 
posterous, unequal,  and  of  course,  unjust.  Yet  such  is  the 
scheme  recommended  for  our  adoption. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  third  ground  taken  by  the  com- 
millee,  in  favour  of  these  consociations  or  ecclesiastical 
courts,  which  is  the  authority  of  Scripture.  Though  a 
layman,  I  presume  I  can  read  and  judge  of  the  meaning  of  a 
plain  text  as  well  as  another. 

Surely  if  consociations  and  ecclesiastical  tribunals  were 
intended  to  be  established  by  Christ  or  his  apostles,  they 
would  have  been  directed  in  plain  terms,  subject  to  no  cavil ; 
and  if  the  committee  have  cited  no  texts  but  such  as  are 
equivocal,  it  is  a  proof,  that  they  are  attempting  to  wrest  the 
scriptures  to  the  furtherance  of  their  own  views. 

The  6rst  proposition  is  "that  each  church  hath  within 
itself  full  power  to  administer  all  the  ordinances,  and  is  not 
under  any  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  whatever." 


59 

These  are  the  words  of  the  committee.  We  agree  to  it. 
Jt  is  the  very  corner-stone  of  Congregationalism;  but  how 
it  could  be  cited  in  favour  of  a  most  enormous  ecclesiastical 
usurpation,  we  cannot  conceive. 

Secondly.  It  is  asserted,  that  "  Churches  do  stand  in  a 
sisterly  relation  to  each  other,  being  united  in  the  same 
faith  and  order."  This  is  not  denied.  They  owe  each 
other  assistance  in  calamity,  in  case  of  sickness  or  death  of 
the  pastor,  in  exchanging  labours  of  love;  at  ordinations » 
dedications,  and  other  like  cases.  But  does  it  result  from 
this  that  they  have  any  judicial  authority  over  each  other* 
and  if  so,  to  what  extent?     The  only  texts  cited  are, 

Ephesians,  iv.  5.  There  is  "  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one 
baptism."  This  gives  no  authority.  If  it  does,  it  goes  to 
support  the  Church  of  Rome  in  obliging  all  churches  to 
conform  to  her  faith,  a  faith  that  has  fifteen  hundred  years 
support,  and  has  been  embraced  by  three  fourths  of  all 
Christendom.  If  you  dissent  from  her  **  one  faith**  it 
must  be  on  the  ground,  that  though  in  truth  there  can  be 
but  one  faith,  yet  each  separate  church  must  decide  for 
itself  what  that  faith  is.     There  is  no  middle  course. 

The  second  text  is  Philippians,  iii.  16.*  "Let  us  walk 
by  the  same  rule,  let  us  mind  the  same  thing."  Where 
so  little  attention  is  paid  to  accuracy,  it  is  perhaps  useless  to 
remark,  that  Griesbach  has  rejected  from  this  text  the 
words  "  Rule,"  and  some  others  in  this  passage.  If,  how- 
ever, the  received  text  be  admitted,  it  must  mean.  Let  us 
walk  by  the  rule  of  the  gospel.  Churches  should  endeavour 
to  agree  in  this  rule,  but  it  can  never  be  intended  that  the 

*  Philippians,  iii.  16.  Griesbach  rejects  from  the  text  nctvovt,  to  avto 
(f^onn.  The  improved  Version  translates  it,  "  However,  as  far  as  we 
have  reached,  let  us  walk  therein." 


60 

majority  should  seflle  definitiveli/  what  thnt  rule  is.  If  thejr 
can,  <he  refoririation  was  an  imjuslifiable,  iinscriplural,  wick- 
ed thing.  If  anv  nuQiber  of  churches  can  seflle  the  rule, 
then  (he  Roman  Calliolick,  ihe  oldest  and  most  numerous, 
had  a  right  to  fix  the  creed  for  all  the  christian  world. 

The  next  texl  is  Ephesians,  iv.  11  and  13.  "And  lie 
gave  some  prophets,  some  apostles,  and  some  evangelists' 
and  some  pastors  and  teachers." — "  Till  we  all  come  in  the 
unity  of  the  faith,  and  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God 
unto  a  perfect  nir.n,  unto  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the 
fulness  of  Christ." 

What  man  in  his  sober  senses,  not  intent  on  building  up 
a  system,  can  see  a  foundation  for  consociaiions  with  power 
to  settle  the  faith,  accept,  admit,  sustain  and  depose  pastors 
in  all  this  passage?  Surely  it  is  not  pretended,  that  the 
Consociators  are  apostles  or  prophets.  What  is  their  au- 
thority then  from  this  text?  The  thirteenth  verse  relates 
no!  to  the  churches,  but  to  the  great  body  of  the  disciples. 
They  are  said  to  come,  or  a  wish  is  expressed,  that  they 
«?«j/ come,  to  unity  of  faith.  But  there  is  no  intimation, 
that  even  the  evangelists  or  apostles  had  authority  to  settle 
that  failh  for  the  whole  church,  in  any  other  way,  than  by 
respectful  advice,  and  interpretation.  Indeed  it  will  appear, 
that  each  of  the  apostles  settled  the  faith  for  himself,  with- 
out reference  to  any  common  standard, 
The  third  proposition  of  the  committee  is,  "  that  commun- 
ioT  of  chiirches  is  the  faithful  improvement  of  the  gifts 
of  CInist  bestowed  on  tlicm  for  his  service  and  glory." — 
Nobody  disputes  this.  It  is  therefore  useless  to  examine 
the  quotations.  The  question  is  still  open,  to  what  extent 
does  this  communion  reach,  and  what  are  the  authorities 
of  the  united  body  ? 

The  fourth  proposition  is  "  Acts  of  communion  are  such 
as  these." 


61 

Isl.  "  Hearty  prayer  and  care  for  one  another."  As  to 
prayer,  this  is  conceded  ;  bul  as  to  care,  if  it  be  meant  care 
of  their  souls,  and  regulation  of  each  others'  faith,  we  deny 
it,  and  proceed  lo  examine  the  pretended  authority  for  it. 

2  Corinthians  xi.  28.  "  Besides  (hose  things  which  are 
without,  that  which  cometh  on  me  daily,  the  care  of  all 
the  churches." 

There  are  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  when  enumerating  his 
labours  and  sufferings  for  the  cause  of  Christ.  He  was  an 
apostle  sent  to  preach  the  gospel  by  Christ  himself,  con- 
verted to  the  christian  faith  by  a  miracle,  endued  with  su- 
pernatural gifts,  able  therefore  to  guide  the  consciences  of 
all  christians.  Now  if  this  Committee  have  these  gifts, 
perhaps  (hey  may  be  entitled  to  the  care  of  all  the  churches. 
Buf  it  is  as  absurd,  to  infer  from  (he  authority  delegated  (o, 
or  exercised  by  St.  Paul,  (hat  (he  same  powers  have  de- 
volved upon  the  Middlesex  or  Norfolk  clergy,  as  it  would 
be,  that  because  the  Apostles  raised  men  from  the  dead, 
they  also  could  do  the  same. 

The  next  quotation  is  still  more  absurd,  1.  Rom.  i.  9.* 
*'  For  God  is  my  witness,  whom  I  serve  with  my  spirit  in  the 
gospel  of  his  son,  (hat  without  ceasing  I  make  mention  of 
you  always  in  my  prayers."  This  was  also  the  language  of 
the  same  apostle,  but  (here  is  no(  a  colour  of  foundation 
for  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal  in  (hese  words,  and  I  doubt 
whe(her  these  orthodox  gentlemen  perform  honestly,  what 
the  apostle  conscientiovjsly  did,  whether  they  are  always 
mindful  of  us  hereticks  in  their  prayers.  At  any  rate  let 
them  confine  themselves  to  that  exercise,  which  we  ad- 
mit is  both  lawful  and  expedient. 

The  2nd  duty  or  act  of  communion  is  ,(o  "  aflford  relief 
by    communion    of    temporal  and   spiritual    necessities." 

*  See  Archbishop  Ncwcome's  translation  of  Rom.  i.  9.  in  the  Impror- 
^4  Version. 


62 

As  to  temporal  necessities,  we  are  all  agreed,  that  they 
ought  to  be  relieved,  and  so  also  spiritual  wants,  so  far  as 
we  have  above  defined  them,  the  obligation  to  relieve  them 
is  unquestionable. 

We  doubt  however  whether  it  be  a  christian  duty  to  call 
a  brother  a  heretick,  or  to  judge  him  without  reason. 

The  citation  from  Romans  xv.  '26  '27.*  relates  only  to 
pecuniary  aid.  That  from  Acts  xi.  22,  26.  merely  shews 
that  when  those  who  had  been  dispersed  and  scattered  by 
persecution  began  to  assemble,  the  Christians  at  Jerusalem 
sent  a  missionary  to  comfort  and  confirm  them. 

The  quotation  from  ^^2  Corinthians  viii.  1,  4,  14.  relates 
solely  to  the  pecuniary  assistance  furnished  to  the  bre- 
thren at  Jerusalem  by  the  church  of  Macedonia. 

The  3d  act  of  communion  is  alleged  to  be  "  to  maintain 
unity  and  peace  by  giving  an  account  one  to  another  of 
their  publick  actions." 

This  authority,  if  founded  in  scripture,  would  certainly  go 
very  far  to  maintain  the  right  claimed  by  this  committee  ; 
but  it  is  truly  painful  to  see  clergymen  thus  distort  and 
misrepresent  the  holy  scriptures. 

No  where  is  this  duty  of  giving  an  account  to  any  body, 
as  to  a  superiour  tribunal,  enforced  in  the  sacred  writings. 

Many  acts  of  fellowship,  which  were  both  expedient  and 
necessary  in  the  early  ages  of  the  church,  have  long  since 
ceased  to  be   so. 

The  Church  was  then  encompassed  with  enemies  :  It 
was  shaken  by  persecution.  The  closest  bonds  of  union- 
were  necessary.  These  motives  have  now  ceased  to  ex- 
ist. Let  us  examine  the  only  authority  for  this  accounta- 
bility of  one  church  to  another  a-i  to  its  publick  actions. 

*  Tlic  Jews  Laving  made  the  Gentiles  "  pa.rta.kers of  spiritval  things" 
refers  to  the  "  oracles  of  God"  having  been  preserved  by  the  for- 
mer, &c.  &c. 


S3 

It  is  taken  from  Acts  xi.  2,  4,  18.  The  case  was  sim- 
ply this.  The  Jewish  christians  were  offended  with  Peter 
for  associating  with,  and  preaching  to  the  Gentiles.  They 
called  him  to  account  for  it.  Peter,  unwilling  to  lose  his 
influence  with  the  Jews,  and  wishing  to  quiet  their  tender 
consciences,  gave  them  a  history  of  his  miraculous  vision, 
and  of  the  command  he  had  received  to  preach  to  the  Gen- 
tiles. But  did  Peter  admit  the  right  of  the  Church  to  call 
him  to  an  account  ?  Does  this  case  prove  the  expediency  of 
such  an  interference  ?  It  is  a  most  unfortunate  exauiple  for 
the  Consociation  ;  for  in  that  case  the  whole  church  at  Je- 
rusalem, probably  as  competent  as  the  Massachusetts  Gen- 
eral Association,  did  undertake  to  call  an  apostle  to  account, 
when  they  were  dearly  in  the  ivrong  themselves.  This 
shews  the  danger  and  presumption  of  the  interference  of 
fallible  men  in  matters  of  this  nature.  That  they  cannot 
comprehend  the  whole  counsel  of  God,  and  ought  not  to 
judge  each  other.  Was  Peter  right  in  preaching  to  the 
Gentiles  ?  Then  the  church  were  wrong  in  calling  him  to 
account.  Peter,  it  is  true,  gave  them  satisfaction,  not  as  a 
matter  of  right    but  of  expedience. 

How  dangerous  would  be  this  power  in  a  church  not  bet- 
ter informed  than  the  first  church  at  Jerusalem,  when  we 
have  no  longer  an  apostle  to  correct  their  mistakes  !  ! ! 

I  have  thus  shewn,  by  a  very  brief  analysis,  on  what  slen- 
der grounds  reposes  this  assumed  authority  of  judging  the 
Churches.  I  could  extend  the  same  inquiry  to  the  few  re- 
maining texts,  but  I  trust  I  have  done  enough,  by  produc- 
ing the  most  prominent.  There  is  no  middle  course,  as  I 
have  already  had  occasion  to  remark,  between  the  admis- 
sion of  the  full  extent  of  ecclesiastical  dominion  claimed  by 
the  Romish  see,  and  the  entire  liberty  of  each  separate 
church. 


64 


CHAPTER  IV. 

The  real  motives  of  the  proposed  change  or  subversion  of 
the  Congregational  mode  of  government,  and  of  the 
substitution  of  the  Consociations  in  its  place. 

We  have  seen,  that  the  avowed  motives  for  such  a  change 
are  either  too  loose  and  declamatory,  or  too  trifling  and 
unfounded  to  be  the  true  ones.  Yet  as  men  do  not  em- 
bark in  such  attempts,  ^iiich  involve  so  much  labour  and 
wear  of  conscience,  without  strong  inducements,  it  behoves 
us  to  inquire  what  these  must  be. 

If  one  was  disposed  to  be  sententious,  we  might  saj,  that 
we  fear  that  neither  the  love  of  God,  or  of  one's  neighbour, 
neither  a  wish  to  promote  the  spread  of  Christianity,  or  a 
desire  of  union  among  the  ciiurches,  were  the  prevailing 
motives  with  the  prime  movers  of  this  scheme,  but  (hat 
thev  may  be  resolved  into  two  passions,  envy,  and  the 
love  of  power. 

We  are  happy,  that  this  charge  does  not  extend  to  many 
persons.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  association  in  gen- 
eral approve  of  these  propositions. 

The  project  of  the  committee  is  a  vast,  and  bold  one, — 
It  aims  at  the  overthrow  of  principles  and  usages  which 
have  been  settled  for  nearly  two  centuries.  It  is  a  retro- 
grade measure,  from  the  principles  of  the  reformation,  to  the 
tyrannical  doctrines  of  the  fifteenth  century.  It  is  the  sig-* 
nal  for  new,  and  perhaps  even  bloody  contentions  in  the 
church.  It  is  ushered  in  under  the  most  unfavourable 
auspices.  Never  was  the  Church  more  quiet  than  before 
the  publication  of  this  plan.  Never  was  an  harmony  more 
delightful  to  christians  than  that  wliich  lately  prevailed. 
Every  sect,  and  every   christian  enjoys  the  right  in  peace. 


65 

to  read  and  interpret  the  scriptures,  according  to  the  light 
which  God  has  given  them.  Since  the  apostolick  age  such 
a  privilege  has  ne\'er  before  been  enjoyed  in  any  quarter  of 
the  globe.  Why  disturb  this  harmony  T  Why  deface  and 
distort  this  delightful  picture  ?  it  is  said  that  the  church  is 
teeming  with  errours  and  corruptions.  If  jou  listen  to  the 
committee,  you  would  suppoi^e  that  christian  America  ex^ 
hibited  a  chaos,  in  which  vices  and  errours  were  predomi- 
nant. But  is  this  so  ?  or  is  it  a  calumny  against  our  age  «ind 
country  ?  W^hat  corrupt  clergymen  have  been  settled  ? 
What  partial,  prejudiced  councils  have  been  holden  ?— • 
In  what  instances  have  the  doors  of  one  church  been  opened 
to  the  outcasts  of  another  ?  It  is  said,  incompetent  men  get 
into  the  ministry.  It  is  supposed  the  committee  mean  into 
Congregational  societies.  Let  us  have  the  cases.  Who 
are  they,  and  in  what  parishes?  Perhaps  it  will  be  seen^ 
that  the  most  able  and  competent  men  are,  in  the  views  of 
of  the  committee,  incompetent. 

Much  complaint  is  made  too,  of  the  decay  of  piefyi 
This  might  be  granted  safely,  without  attributing  it  to  any 
defect  in  the  government  of  the  Church-  Morals  may 
change  from  a  thousand  causes  exteriour  to,  and  foreign  from 
the  Church.  To  prove  that  the  Church  is  in  faulty  it 
should  be  shewn,  that  there  has  been  corruption  or  partial- 
ity in  the  Courts  established  by  the  ancient  Platform^  or 
that  abuses  remained  unredressed  after  the  most  etfectUa* 
measures  had  been  taken  to  remedy  them.  We  now  chal- 
lenge the  committee,  Messrs.  Woods,  Codman,  and  Morse, 
to  state  the  cases,  and  the  parishes  in  which  these  evils  have 
occurred,  what  measures  they  or  others  have  taken  to  re- 
dress them,  and  in  what  instances  they  have  proved  inef- 
fectual. Upon  doing  this,  we  pledge  ourselves  to  reply  to 
the  specifick  cases.  If  they  are  right,  we  will  acknowledge? 
our  errour;  if  wrong,,  we  will  prove  them  so^ 
9 


66 

This  howeveivbe  assured,  fellow-ritizens,  they  will  never 
do.  The  facls  are  against  them,  and  they  prefer  to  rest 
under  the  shelter  of  broad  assertion. 

But  why  tills  delicacy  in  staling  the  whole  truth?  ^\  hy 
no!  avow,  that  the  complaint  is,  that  IMr.  Burr  could  not  com- 
pel his  whole  parish  to  hear  him  after  he  had  changed  his 
opinions  ? 

The  real  difficulty  is,  not  that  the  mode  of  triid  is  not  a 
good  one,  but  that  it  is  one,  which  is  noi  wholly  under  the 
control  of  these  people.  As  the  power  at  present  is  such, 
that  a  minority  can  protect  themselves  asainst  an  overbear- 
ing and  violent  majority  by  insisting  on  niuiual  councils,  as 
this  minority  have  dared  to  breathe  in  nkispers  their  opin- 
ions, they  must  be  put  down.  There  must  be  but  one  sen- 
timent, and  Dr.  IMorse's,  and  Dr.  Worcester's  reading  must 
be  the  giiage  of  that  opinion.  Thus,  for  example,  Boston 
for  fifty  years  has  nourished,  may  I  say,  has  honoured  and 
loved  and  revered  men  whom //if^  call  a  sect  of  hereticks,  i<s 
Chaunceys,  and  Mayhews,  and  Clarkes,  and  Belknaps,  and 
many  others  enumerated  in  the  eloquent  letter  of  President 
Adams  to  Dr.  Morse,  and  she  must  now  be  both  purified 
and  punished.  Unhappily  for  the  violent,  these  men  have 
been  uncommonly  learned  and  able-  Another  passion  has 
been  excited.  Those  must  be  silenced  who  could  not  be 
answered.  Hence  human  learning  has  been  decried,  and 
the  University,  the  nurse  of  this  detested  literature,  must 
be  rendered  odious. 

The  true  motives  of  this  change  are  to  counteract  those 
whom  they  please  to  call  hereticks,  that  is,  those  who  are 
as  learned,  as  able,  and  as  liberal  as  themselves.  This,  I 
presume,  not  an  honest  man  of  the  orthodox  party  will  deny. 
He  will  not,  to  his  conscience,  whatever  he  may  say  to  the 
world.  The  means  of  effecting  their  object,  is  to  get  pos- 
session of  ecclesiaslical  power,  to  coerce,  intimidate,  and* 


G7 

finally  expel  the  minority,  and  thus  to  overawe,  if  not  com- 
mand  that  citadel  of  learning  and  religion,  our  University,  the 
best  and  highest  object  of  j-everence  and  afieclion  in  our 
eountry. 

If  it  be  asked,  in  what  manner,  and  by  what  course  of 
proceedings  these  designs  are  to  be  accomplished,  we 
answer,  by  the  exercise  of  the  powers  granted  to  the  pro- 
posed Consociations,  so  often  attempted  to  be  established 
in  the  early  periods  of  our  history,  but  as  often  defeated 
by  Jhe  prudence  and  proper  jealousy  of  the  lay  part  of  the 
xommunity. 

If  any  number  of  churches  can  be  persuaded  to  enter 
into  these  consociations,  they  expect  to  fix  them  forever  in 
a  state  of  thraldom.  Thus,  suppose  Dr.  Morse's,  or  any 
o.tt:er  church,  could  be  persuaded  to  join  this  new^  estab- 
lishment ;  upon  the  pastor's  decease,  no  man  can  be  permit- 
ted to  preach  in  such  church  upon  probation,  unless  ap- 
proved by  the  consociation.  The  people  of  the  parish  are 
to  have  no  vote  on  that  question  in  the  first  instance.  No- 
body can  be  admitted  into  such  a  church,  till  approved  by 
the  consociation. 

If  any  number  of  the  parishioners  should  know  of  a  re- 
spectable candidate,  and  should  insist  upon  hearing  him 
against  the  will  of  the  church,  and  should  vote  to  settle 
hi.n,  the  consociation  to  which  the  church  has  attached 
itself,  may  refuse  him  ordination.  The  parish  will  have  no 
right  to  call  in  such  churches  as  they  may  prefer.  They 
are  to  be  bound  down  for  ever  to  the  consociation  as  the 
Buperiour  tribunal. 

Such  we  say  are  the  objects  of  this  new  plan.  It  is  true, 
the  courts  of  law  can,  and  will  restrain  them,  but  this  does 
not  alter  the  nature  of  the  project. 


68 

In  like  manner,  if  a  clergyman  now  seltled  in  any  church 
which  may  join  Ihe  consociations,  should  in  the  prosecution 
of  his  studies  change  any  of  his  opinions,  with  the  perfect 
approbation,  both  of  his  church  and  people,  it  will  be  com- 
petent to  any  minister  of  the  consociation  to  cite  him  as  a 
criminal  to  answer  for  his  heretical  opinions,  and  upon  trial 
he  may  be  deposed  from  the  ministerial  office  and  dismissed 
from  his  parisli.  There  are  no  Jimits  prescribed  to  the  ex- 
tent of  these  consociations.  Wherever  the  liberal  clergy 
iare  now  a  majority,  the  consociators  may,  by  enlarging  the 
limits  of  the  consociations,  outvote  them,  and  make  them  a 
minority. 

Thus  it  would  be  in  the  power  of  a  small  majority  in  the 
whole  state,  to  control  and  displace  the  minority. 

It  is  hoped  also,  that  the  authority  and  influence  of  these 
great  consociations  will,  by  degrees,  so  far  overawe  the 
churches  which  may  not  join  them  in  the  first  instance,  as 
to  give  them  an  opportunity  of  filling  up  any  vacancies 
with  clergymen  devoted  to  their  views. 

It  is,  in  short,  an  organized,  affiliated  association  for  the 
purpose  of  rooting  out  all  ministers  who  will  not  subscribe 
to  the  creed  of  the  authors  of  this  plan. 


CHAPTER  V. 

What  are  the  rights  of  the  Mcmliers  of  Congregational 
Societies,  as  recognized  by  the  Constituiiou  and  Judi- 
cial decisions  of  this  State  ? 

In  examini'ig  this  branch  of  the  subject,  it  is  immaterial 
vrbat  powers  church  members  formerly  usurped,  or  what 
fiythority    ecclesiastical  bodies    anciently  assumed.     Th^ 


-      69 

existing  law  must  alone  govern,  and  that  law  can  only  be 
prononnced  by  the  highest  judicial  authorities.  As  the 
ecclesiastical  power  stood  at  the  adoption  of  the  constitu- 
tion, so  it  must  for  ever  remain,  until  that  constitution  shall 
be  altered  or  amended. 

The  church  is  now  placed,  as  it  ought  to  be  in  all  coun- 
tries, especially  those  which  are  free,  in  a  situation  distinct 
from  the  other  members  of  a  parish,  having  no  authority 
over  any  but  its  own  members,  possessing  no  voice  in  the 
choice  or  deposition  of  a  pastor,  nor  any  control  over  his 
opinions  or  mode  of  preaching,  greater  than  otJier  mem- 
bers of  the  same  parish  or  society  enjoy. 

That  such  is  the  law  of  the  land,  fully,  finally  and  per- 
fectly settled,  that  the  contract  between  a  minister  and  his 
parish  is  purely  civil,  and  that  no  ecclesiastical  body  has, 
or  can  have  a  right  to  interfere  between  them,  except  in 
the  mode  pointed  out  by  the  Cambridge  Platform,  will  be 
abundantly  proved  by  the  following  decisions  of  the  Su- 
preme Judicial  Court. 

In  the  case  of  Avery  vs.  Tyringham,  3  Massachusetts 
Term  Reports,  the  main  question  was,  whether  a  town  could 
dismiss  a  clergyman,  without  good  cause,  at  its  pleasure. 
The  court  decided  that  it  could  not,  and  in  delivering  the 
opinion  of  the  Bench,  Chief  Justice  Parsons  added,  "  This 
"  article  of  the  constitution  (the  3d.)  had  without  doubt 
"  made  some  alteration  in  the  ecclesiastical  establishments 
"  of  the  State.  Under  the  colonial  laws,  the  church  mem- 
"  bers  in  full  communion  had  the  exclusive  right  of  elect- 
"  ing  and  settling  their  minister,  to  whose  support  all  the 
"  inhabitants  of  the  town  were  obliged  to  contribute. 
"  Under  the  colony  charter,  no  man  could  be  a  freeman 
"unless  he  was  a  church  member  until  1662,  and  a  ma- 
"  jority  of  the  church  constituted  a  majority  of  the  legal  vo- 


70 

"  fers  of  the  town.  After  that  time,  inhabitants  not  church 
"  members,  if  freeholders,  and  having  certain  other  quali- 
"  fications,  might  be  admitted  to  the  rights  of  freemen. — 
"  In  consequence  of  this  a  ditTerent  method  of  setthng  a 
"  minister  was  adopted  under  the  Provincial  charter. — 
*  The  church  made  the  election  and  sent  their  proceedings 
"  to  the  town  for  their  approbation.  If  the  town  approv- 
*<  ed  the  election,  it  also  voted  the  salary  and  settlement. 
"  When  the  candidate  accepted,  he  was  solemnly  introduc- 
"  ed  to  office  by  ordination,  and  became  the  settled  minister, 
"  entitled  to  his  salary  and  settlement  under  the  votes  of  the 
"  town. 

"  If  the  town  disapproved,  and  the  church  insisted  on  the 
"  election,  it  might  call  an  ecclesiastical  council,  and  if  the 
"  council  approved  the  election,  the  town  was  obliged  to 
"  maintain  the  person  chosen  as  the  settled  minister  of  the 
"  place ;  but  if  the  council  disapproved,  the  church  must 
"  have  proceeded  to  a  new  election. 

"  By  the  constitution  the  rights  of  the  town  are  enlarg- 
"  ed^  if  it  choose  to  exercise  them,  and  those  of  the  church 
"  impaired. 

"  If  the  church,  when  their  election  has  been  disapprov- 
*'  ed  by  the  town,  shall  unwisely  refuse  to  make  a  new  elec- 
"  tion,  or  if  the  town  for  any  cause  shall  abandon  the  an- 
"  cient  usages  of  the  country  in  settling  a  minister,  it  mai/f 
"  without  ov  AGAINST  the  consent  of  the  church,  elect  a 
"  publick  teacher  and  contract  to  support  him." 

The  chief  justice  also,  in  direct  contradiction  to  Dr. 
Morse  and  his  committee,  declared,  that  for  immorality  or 
even  negligence  there  is  now  a  competent  remedy  against 
the  pastor.  We  have  therefore  the  same  stable  and  fixed  tri- 
bunal in  such  cases,  for  which  the  committee  appear  to  be 
so  anxious,  and  a  much  more  important  one  than  that  which 
they  propose.     He  proceeds  "  There  are   also  objections 


71 

"  to  a  minister  founded  in  questions  of  doctrine  and  disci- 
"  pline.  In  all  these  cases,  the  parties,  if  they  cannot 
*'  agree  to  dissolve  the  contract,  may  call  to  their  assistance 
"  a  council  mutually  chosen,  and  their  advice,  technically 
"  called  their  result,  is  so  far  of  the  nature  of  an  award, 
*'  tha.t  either  parti/  conforming  thereto  will  be  justified." 

This  ascain  contradicts  all  the  assertions  and  reasoning  of 
the  committee,  as  to  the  imperfect  nature  of  mutual  coun- 
cils. 

"  If,  adds  the  late  learned  Judge,  in  a  case  proper  for  a 
"  mutual  council,  either  party  should  unreasonably,  or 
"  without  good  cause,  refuse  their  concurrence  to  a  mutual 
"  choice,  the  aggrieved  party  may  choose  an  impartial  coua- 
"  cil  Sind  will  be  justified  in  conforming  thereto. 

"  Thus  a  reasonable  tribunal  is  established  to  decide 
"  on  all  cases  of  difficulty  and  controversy  between  a  min- 
"  ister  and  his  people,  a  tribunal,  founded  in  ancient  usage, 
"  resorted  to  in  practice,  and  probably  in  many  cases,  but 
"  certainly  in  one,  in  which  I  was  council,  supported  by  the 
"  opinion  of  all  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Judicial  Court." 

Now  in  whom  are  we  to  place  confidence  as  to  the  Laws 
of  the  land,  in  Dr.  Morse,  or  the  judges  of  the  highest 
Courts  ot  Law  ? 

The  former  represents  mutual  councils  as  scenes  of  par- 
tiality and  prejudice,  incompetent,  inconclusive,  inefTectual. 
The  latter  say,  they  are  founded  in  ancient  usage,  are 
venerable  and  effectual  in  their  operations  and  results.  In 
the  case  of  Fuller  vs.  Inhabitants  of  Princeton,  this  last  opin- 
ion was  fully  established. 

In  the  case  of  Burr  vs.  Inhabitants  of  first  parish  in 
Sandwich,  9th  Massachusetts  Term  Reports,  the  Chief 
Justice  again  recognizes  this  doctrine  of  the  perfect  compe- 
tencv  of  councils  to  afford  relief;  and  in  stronger  terms. 


72 

"  The  Law  as  applicable  to  the  question  before  us,  is  not 
"  disputed  by  either  of  the  parties.  It  is  not  denied,  that 
"  in  a  proper  case  betsveen  a  minister  and  his  parish  for 
"  the  advice  of  an  ecclesiastical  council,  if  eilber  party 
"offer  to  the  other  such  a  council  to  be  mutually  cho- 
"  sen,  and  the  other  without  sufficient  cause  refuse  Jo  join  in 
"  the  choice^  the  party  offering  may  choose  an  ecclesiastical 
"  council,  and  the  advice  of  the  council  so  chosen,  and  act- 
"  ing  fairly  and  honestly,  will  justify  either  party  in  adopt- 
"  ing  their  result." 

In  the  same  cause,  the  Chief  Justice  said,  "  Our  ances- 
"  tors  came  to  this  country  smarting  from  the  rod  of  the 
"  hierarchy  then  In  power  in  the  country  from  which  they 
"  emigrated.  They  were  hostile  to  any  ecclesiastical  co- 
"  ercive  jurisdiction  ivhatever  in  all  matters  of  doctrine 
*'  and  discipline^  as  repugnant  to  the  liberties  of  the 
"  churches;  and  although  synods  were  holden,  and  councils 
"  of  the  churches  convened,  yet  no  compulsory  authority 
"  was  vested  in  them  :  and  the  utility  of  any  ecclesiastical 
"  coercive  power  has  been  doubted,  as  tending  to  repress  a 
"free  and  liberal  inquiry  after  truth,  and   to   substitute 

"  FOR  THE  ERROURS  OF    HERESY,  SOMETIMES  QUESTIONA- 

"  RLE,  the  VICE  of  hypocrisy^  always  censurable." 

A  more  conclusive  opinion  on  any  judicial  question  was 
never  promulgated,  and  surely  none  was  ever  expressed  in 
language  more  elegant  and  forcible.  If  Chief  Justice  Par- 
sons had  never  written  any  opinions  on  other  subjects, 
these  alone  would  have  rendered  his  memory  dear  to  the 
friends  of  religious  liberty.  This  is  not  extravagant,  be- 
cause it  is  difficult  to  produce  from  any  jurisprudist  or  phi- 
losopher opinions,  more  correct,  or  more  simply  and  elegant- 
ly expressed. 

Such  then  are  the  existing  laws  of  Massachusetts  with 
regard  to  the  ecclesiastical  power  :  A  system  of  laws  and 


/3 

principles  which  cannot  be  changed  without  the  consent  of 
the  whole  people.  From  them  it  appears,  that  the  whole 
and  uncontrolled  power  of  settling  a  minister  is  rested  in 
the  members  of  every  parish,  as  distinct  from  the  church, 
if  they  see  fit  to  exercise  it — That  the  only  legal  mode  of 
removing  a  pastor  is  by  a  mutual  council,  or  in  case  of  re- 
fusal of  the  pastor  to  join  in  it,  by  an  ex  parte  council.—^ 
That  this  remedy  is  ancient,  venerable  and  recognized  by 
our  courts  of  law  as  absolute  and  binding — That  there  can 
be  no  other  legal  or  constitutional  ecclesiastical  tribunal 
with  coercive  powers  ;  and  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  court, 
such  ajurisdiction  as  Dr.  Morse  now  sets  up,  would  be 
opposed  to  the  principles  of  our  ancestors,  to  the  usages  of 
the  country,  and  to  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  people. 


CONCLUSION,  AND  INFERENCES. 

If  such  be  the  law  of  Massachusetts,  recognized  by  its 
highest  judicial  authority,  in  what  manner  can  it  be  changed, 
except  by  an  alteration  of  the  constitution,  or  by  the  inter- 
ference of  the  legislature  ;  a  mode  which  is  itself  perhaps 
questionable  ? 

It  would  be  injurious  to  these  Reverend  Gentlemen  to 
presume,  that  they  contemplate  a  measure,  which  shall 
have  no  other  than  a  moral  or  honourable  authority.  It 
would  be  unworthy  of  the  labour  they  have  bestowed  on  it, 
if  not  a  single  order,  or  decree,  or  result,  would  have  the 
smallest  legal  or  practical  force.  This  would,  in  fact,  over- 
throw the  only  arguments  in  its  favour,  since  the  principal 
objections  to  our  old  and  venerable  system,  consist  in  its 
inadequacy  to  effect  its  objects,  and  its  want  of  coercive 
powers. 

10 


74 

If,  thererore,  our  judges  understand  the  law,  it  is  abso- 
lutely itnpracdcable  to  give  the  smallest  efficacy  to  the  new 
system  of  ecclesiastical  dominion  :  certainly  it  is  so  without 
the  aid  of  the  Legislature.  It  is  hardiy  to  be  presumed  that 
the  Baptists,  and  Q,uakers,  and  Episcopalians  in  that  body, 
will  lend  their  aid,  in  giving  force,  and  extension,  and  domi- 
nion to  a  sect,  which  is  now  the  ruling  one,  and  whose  past 
measures  cannot  excite  in  them  the  most  perfect  confidence 
in  its  liberality. 

Let  us  however,  examine  this  question  more  nearly. 

Suppose  the  Grand  Association,  after  sounding,  as  they 
profess  to  do,  the  sentiments  of  the  people  by  this  publi- 
cation, should  proceed  at  their  next  general  self-created  as- 
sembly, to  adopt  Dr.  Morse's  report. 

Among  other  powers,  with  which  the  Consociations  are 
vested  by  this  project,  they  are  substituted  in  the  place  of 
mutual  councils,  and  all  the  old  ecclesiastical  modes  of  trial 
and  relief  are  repealed.  The  consociations  are  to  be  em- 
powered *'  to  hear  and  decide  upon  any  complaint  or  alle- 
gation touching  ministerial  character,  against  any  minister 
belonging  to  it,  to  acquit  or  find  guilty,  to  advise  and  suSr 
tain  or  depose,  as  the  case  may  require."  Now  we  ask, 
suppose  the  grand  association  of  ministers  do  as  they  pro- 
pose, adopt  this  system  ;  will  it  bind  their  parishioners  ? 
No. 

Will  it  bind  their  churches  ?  No. 

Will  it  bind  even  the  members  who  are  present  and  vole 
for  it  ?  No. 

A  bargain  or  contract,  in  derogation  of  natural  liberty  and 
the  rights  of  conscience,  is  void.  But  admit  that  this  salu- 
tary principle  of  the  common  law  does  not  here  apply, 
w'lich  we  think  it  does  in  the  greatest  force,  still  of  what  use 
will  your  new  code  be,  if  it  does  not  bind  the  parish  or  the 
;!hurch  ! 


75 

But  it  will  be  said,  we  are  sensible  of  this,  and  we  will 
have  fhe  consent  both  of  parish  and  church. 

Then  you  must  have  the  unanimous  consent,  for  it  is  one 
of  the  cases  in  which  tlie  majority  cannot  bind  the  minority. 
The  laws  of  the  land,  and  the  principles  of  religious  liberty, 
cannot  be  altered  or  abandoned,  or  surrendered  by  any  ma- 
jorities. 

It  is  as  if  a  parish  were  to  vole  to  return  to  the  British 
Cro'.vn,  or  to  invite  Bonaparte  to  accept  a  diadem.  The 
minority  could  not  be  obliged  by  such  votes. 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  majority,  who  should  vote  for  it, 
would  not  be  bound  by  i(.  They  might  withdraw  that  ap- 
probalion,  ad  libitum.  A  member  of  a  parish  or  church 
couk!  not  bind  the  purchaser  of  his  estate  or  pew,  neither 
could  he  fetter  the  consciences  of  his  children.  I  state 
undeniable  truttis.  Your  system  then,  as  a  compact,  can 
only  extend  to  fhe  individual  who  subscribes  to  it. 

Thus,  suppose  a  minister  charged  with  heresy,  and  sup- 
pose both  him  and  his  church  to  be  members  of  your  con- 
federacy or  consociation,  suppose  such  minister  deposed  for 
his  errours,Dr.  Worcester  for  example  ;  and  suppose  his  pa- 
rish, like  Mr.  Norton's  of  Weymouth,  should  agree  with 
him,  and  should  order  the  decree  of  the  consociation  de- 
posing their  minister  to  be  burnt  by  the  common  hangman, 
what  is  your  remedy  ?  None. 

Yes.  You  will  say,  we  can  put  the  church  out  of  com- 
munion.    So  you  can  now  do,  without  any  coasociation. 

This  leads  me  to  notice  an  alarming  innovation  in  the  pro- 
posed project.  Under  the  old  system,  no  minister  could 
be  brought  to  trial  without  a  major  vote  of  his  own  parish- 
ioners. This  repressed  that  vile  spirit  of  litigation  and 
slander  to  which  men  are  so  prone. 

By  the  present  project  we  perceive,  that  a  minister  may 
be  accused  before  the  consociation  by  any  member   of  his 


76 

cinircli,  or  by  the  minister  of  another  church,  even  when 
his  whole  parish  are  entirely  satisfied  with  his  doc- 
trines and  conduct.  A  more  dreadful  plan  for  convulsing 
and  tearing  in  pieces  the  church  of  Christ  can  scarcely  be 
conceived. 

If  then  this  plan  can  have  no  operation  except  with  regard 
to  the  churches  who  may  join  it  ;  if  even  these  churches, 
can  bind  themselves  only,  and  not  the  whole  parish 
or  society  ;  if  they  cannot  bind  even  the  minority  of 
the  church,  who  may  dissent  either  at  first,  or  at  any  subse- 
quent period  ;  if  a  clergyman  can  be  settled  against  the 
consent  of  the  consociations,  under  the  authority  of  the  old 
Platform  ;  if  a  pastor,  deposed  by  the  new  consociations, 
will  still  retain  his  sacerdotal  character,  and  can  sue  for  and 
recover  his  salary,  of  what  practical  efficacy  will  the  new 
constilulion  be  ?  That  tiiis  is  so,  we  appeal  to  every  sound 
lawyer  in  ihe  stale.  We  invite  them  to  examine  the  con- 
stitution, and  tiie  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Judicial  Court, 
and  to  say,  whether  any  body,  whether  synod,  council,  or 
the  new  fangled  bodiescalled  consociations,  or  associations, 
have  power  to  change  the  ecclesiastical  government  of  the 
Congresjational  Churches  ? 

If  these  principles  are  correct,  and  we  feel  a  high  confi- 
dence that  they  are  so,  how  are  the  difficulties  stated  by 
the  comniiltee  (which,  in  fact,  have  no  existence)  to  be 
remedied  by  this  plan? 

_  It  is  said,  in  high  sounding  language  without  meanmg, 
that  "  the  offender  must  stand  for  trial  before  the  wholf 
church,"  by  which  is  intended,  I  presume,  the  whole  Con- 
gregational Church.  It  is  not  proposed,  I  should  presume, 
to  summon  Mr.  Channing  or  Dr.  Porter,  before  Dr.  Baldwin, 
Dr.  Gardiner,  or  bishop  Cheverus. 

But  where  is  the  authority  for  the  whole  Congregational 
Church  to  assemble,  and  settle  dogmas  of  faith  and  try 


77 

hereticks  ?  Did  they  ever  admit  such  a  jurisdiction  ?  No. 
Their  whole  conduct  and  principles  are  opposed  to  it. 

These,  however,  are  not  the  whole  difficulties  of  the  case  j 
the  greatest  remains ■ 

When  the  churches,  or  any  number  of  them,  shall  have 
entered  into  these  Consociations,  they  may  be  Presbyteri- 
■ans,  or  Episcopalians,  or  Consociationalists,  but  they  will 
cease  to  be  Congregationalists.  This  is  no  nice  metaphy- 
sical distinction,  it  is  founded  on  principles  not  to  be 
refuted. 

What  is  Congregationalism  ?  What  is  the  distinctive  cha- 
racteristick  of  congregational  churches,  as  opposed  to  other 
sects  ?  It  consists  SOLELY,  I  repeat  it,  solely  in  the  form 
of  church  government,  not  in  doctrine.  The  orthodox 
congregationalists  agree  with  the  church  of  England  in  all 
its  arlicles  of  faith.  It  is  only  in  their  ideas  as  to  the  go- 
vernment of  the  church  that  they  differ. 

The  sect  of  congregationalists  had  scarcely  an  existence 
before  our  ancestors  emigrated  to  America ;  and  we  have 
shown  by  ample  evidence,  which  we  shall  render  more  clear 
by  our  Notes,  that  their  essential  characteristick  was  the 
denial  of  any  ecclesiastical  coercive  power.  What  greater 
coercive  power  can  there  be,  than  that  proposed  by  the 
committee,  to  prevent  the  election  of  pastors,  and  to  depose 
a  minister  of  Christ,  against  the  will  of  his  people  ? 

The  consociations  are  therefore  a  departure  from  Congre- 
gationalism. They  will  become  a  new  sect.  Whatever 
name  they  usurp,  the  effect  will  be  the  same. 

Every  man,  then,  in  any  parish  now  congregational,  which, 
shall  vote  to  join,  and  shall  join  the  nerv  sect,  will  be  ab- 
solved from  his  obligations  to  the  pastor  and  parish.  He 
can  lawfully  refuse  to  contribute  to  the  support  of  the  con- 
sociating  sect  on  the  plea  that  he  is  a  congregationalist,  and 
cannot  conscientiously  attend  a  consociating  minister  ;   that 


n 

he  is  opposed  in  his  conscience  to  ecclesiastical  tyranny, 
and  that  his  money  must  go  to  the  support  of  some  congre- 
gational clergyman. 

He  may  join  any  congregational  society  in  the  state,  and 
his  taxes  must  be  paid  over  to  such  pastor  of  the  old  per- 
suasion. 

Who  will  deny  these  principles  ?  Will  any  sensible  law- 
yer, or  other  sound  layman  or  divine  dispute  them  ?  He 
must  either  deny  our  premises  or  conclusion.  Will  he 
question  our  definition  of  Congregationalism?  Let  him  find 
a  better,  supported  by  as  great  authorities.  Will  he  deny 
that  the  Independents  or  congregationalists  held,  that  each 
church  had  full  power  within  itself  to  govern  and  regulate 
its  affairs?  That  it  was  accountable  to  no  synods,  councils, 
or  other  ecclesiastical  tribunals  ? 

If  he  admits  these  premises,  he  surely  cannot  deny  that 
the  proposed  system  is  a  direct  and  palpable  departure  from 
these  principles.  If  so,  the  new  consociators  will  constiiute 
a  nev/  sect,  to  which  the  old  congregationalists  are  no  longer 
held  to  adhere. 

I  have  now  closed  my  proposed  inquiry.  It  would 
ill  suit  such  a  serious,  argumentative  essay,  to  atteujpt  to 
make  any  appeal  to  the  passions.  If  such  a  cour^jc  had 
been  proper,  I  am  little  qualified  to  adopt  it.  I  have 
brought  to  this  task  only  a  deep  and  solemn  conviction,  I 
may  say,  an  aflfecting  one,  that  the  proposed  measures  will 
end  in  the  disunion  of  the  congregational  churches. 

I  know  the  zeal  with  which  the  system  is  pursued,  and  I  • 
augur  but  little  eflfcct  from  my  feeble  exertions  to  stop  the 
headlong  current.  Every  effort  will  be  made  to  prevent 
this  essay  from  being  read,  sober  and  dispassionate  as  it  is. 
But  the  day  will  assuredly  arrive,  when  the  principles  laid 
down  in  the  preceding  Inquiry  will  be  developed  by  abler 
men,  and  will  be  very  generally  admitted. 


79 

The  rupture  and  convulsion  of  many  parishes  in  which 
the  clergy,  who  favour  these  violent  measures,  now 
feel  secure ;  the  general  disgust  at  such  an  assumption  of 
power,  fhe  refusal  of  many  individuals,  in  parishes  where 
the  majority  may  join  the  consociations,  to  submit  to  their 
authority,  and  the  general  admiration  of  the  conduct  of  those 
ministers,  who  shall  have  adhered  to  the  ancient  and  vene- 
rable system  of  religious  freedom  transmitted  to  us  by  our 
ancestors,  will  finally  and  inevitably  produce  an  assent  to 
the  principles  we  have  advanced,  and  as  general  a  censure 
and  condemnation  of  the  few  restless  men,  by  whom  these 
changes  have  been  introduced. 

A  LAYMAN. 


NOTES. 

NOTE  1st. 

AS  some  persons  may  be  disposed  lo  doubt  the  authority  of 
Chief  Justice  Parsons  in  tlie  historical  part  of  his  opinions,  be- 
cause they  do  not  favour  tlie  views  of  the  friends  of  the  new  sys- 
tem of  ecclesiastical  dominion,  we  have  thought  it  best  to  cite 
some  passages  from  the  Rev.  Wm.  Hubbard's  history  of  New 
England,  a  work  of  the  first  authority,  and  conclusive  on  this 
subject;  since  he  was  cotemjjorary  with  Cotton  iviather,  the 
author  of  the fa?nous  Manuscript,  was  as  orthodox  as  any  man 
then  or  now  living,  and  must  have  felt  disposed  to  give  ail  due 
weight  to  the  ecclesiastical  power.  It  will  be  seen  that  Chief 
Justice  Parsons  drew  his  knowledge  on  this  subject,  in  a  great 
measure,  from  this  pure  orthodox  source. 

It  appears,  that  Messrs.  SheKon  and  Higginson  of  Salem, 
were  elected  by  the  people  and  ordained  by  them,  without  the 
aid  of  any  other  Churches  or  Pastors.  Plymouth  had  been  in- 
vited to  send  messengers,  but  they  arrived  after  the  ordination. 
Hubbard,   119.  printed  copy. 

"  Whatever  sinister  apprehensions  are  or  ever  were  taken  up 
about  the  religion  of  the  Colony  of  New  England,  they  aimed 
only  at  the  primitive  pattern  described  in  the  word  of  God,  and 
practice  of  the  apostolical  churches."     Hubbard   181. 

We  have  shewn  from  Mosheim  that  there  was  no  ecclesiastical 
authority  in  the  apostolical  churches,  out  of  the  limits  of  each 
separate  church. 

One  of  the  principles  of  church  government  in  Massachusetts, 
according  to  Hubbard,  was  the  following  : 

4th.  "  That  there  is  no  jurisdiction  to  which  such  particular 
"  churches  are  or  ought  to  be  subject  (be  it  placed  in  classis, 
"  or  synod)  by  way  of  aiitherUative  censure,  or  any  church  power, 
"  extrinsical  to  the  said  cJuirches,  which  they  ought  to  have  de- 
"  pendence  upon  any  other  sort  of  men  for  the  exercise  of." 
Hubbard  184. 

In  1637  the  first  synod  was  called  in  New-England,  not  by  ec- 
clesiastical but  by  the  civil  authority.  It  will  not  do  lo  exam- 
ine ils  proceedings  too  minutely.  It  is  certain,  they  have  no  ten- 
dency to  increase  our  veneration  for  councils  and  synods.  The 
only  ^^ise  thing  they  appear  to  have  said  or  done  was  "  disch.im- 
ing  any  judicial  power."  "  For  according  to  the  princi;)!es  of 
Congregational  churches,  the  question  only  is  to  be  carried  to  (he 
syno<i,  but  the  case  remains  with  the  particular  chxirch  to  A'lhich 
the  person  is  related." 

11 


"  Disputes  ran  so  high  in  that  synod,  that  the  magistrates 
■were  compelled  (o  interfere  to  prevent  disturbance.  Some  of  the 
Boston  members  were  disgusted  and  withdrew."     Hnbbard  301-2. 

"  In  lfc)42,  Mr.  Carter  was  ordained  pastor  of  Wobura.  There 
"was  some  dirierence  about  the  manner  of  his  ordination,  for,  in  re- 
gard they  had  no  other  officer  in  the  church  besides,  nor  any 
members  that  thought  themselves  tit  to  solemnize  such  an  ordi- 
nance, they  were  advised  by  some,  to  desire  the  elders  of  other 
chinches  to  [>erform  it,  by  imposing  hands  on  Mr.  Carter ;  but 
others,  supposing  it  might  be  the  means  or  occasion  of  introduc- 
ing the  dependency  of  churches,  &c.  and  so  of  a  presbytery,  were 
not  so  free  to  admit  thereof,  and  therefore  it  was  [)erformed  by  one 
of  iheir  own  memtsers,  though  not  so  well  to  the  satisfaction  of 
some  uf  the  magistrates  and  ministers  then  present;  and  since  that 
time  it  hath  been  more  frequent  to  desire  the  elders  of  neighbour- 
ing church'^s,  to  ordain  such,  as  are  l\y  the  churches  ^.nA  people 
chosen  to  be  their  officers.      Hubbard  408. 

Here  we  see  the  extreme  jealousy  of  our  ancestors,  and  that 
the  present  us'ges  as  toordmation  are  only  matters  of  courtesy ; 
h^'nvifrcqv.nitly  submitted  to  in  order  to  please  some  weaker 
maa  Si  rates,  who  could  not  relish  scriptural  simplicity. 

The  next  great  council  was  the  synod  in  1648.  On  which  we 
rem  ".rk  : 

1.  That  a  law  was  necessary  to  call  it,  no  ecclesiastical  pow- 
er l>eing  comuetent  so  to  do. 

2.  'i'haf  even  that  synod  was  looked  upon  with  a  jealous  eye. 
Some  of  llie  deputies  or  memliers  of  the  General  Court  question- 
ed the  power  of  the  Court.  "•  As  also,  because  the  main  end  was, 
for  an  agreement  of  one  uniform  practice  in  all  the  churches,  to 
be  ccmrnended  to  the  General  Court  which  seemed  to  give  power 
either  to  the  synod  or  the  Court  to  compel  the  churches  to  prac- 
tice whiit  shall  be  so  estHi)!ished;  but  being  assured  that  the 
synod  would  have  no  authoritative  power,  but  the  court  would 
have  liberty  to  ado|)t  or  not  just  as  they  pleased,  the  objections 
were  withdrawn."     Hubbard  533. 

"  Still,  many  of  liie  churches  could  not  swallow  it,  because 
they  feared  it  was  the  intention  to  have  ecclesiastical  laws  ^to 
bind  tiie  church.     Hubl>ard  534. 

3d.  It  must  be  noticed,  that  the  proceedings  of  the  synod  were 
considered  of  no  account,  till  adopted  by  the  Legislature. 

It  was  this  synod  which  framed  the  Cambridge  Platform.  It 
Avasdul}'  passed  into  a  law  by  the  legislative  adoption;  and,  ac- 
cording to  Hubbard,  by  that  rule  the  Churches  of  New-England 
have  ever  since  been  ordered.  This  whs  written  about  forty 
years  afier.  One  of  the  main  principles  of  the  Platform  is  as 
follows: — 


Ill 

"13.  Particular  churches,  though  they  are  distinct,  and 
sb  have  not  power  one  over  another,  yet  because  they  are  united 
to  Christ,  not  only  as  a  mystical  but  a  political  head,  they  ought 
to  have  communion  one  with  another  by  way  of  mutual  care, 
consultation,  admonition,  and  participation  in  tlie  same  ordi- 
nances."    Hubbard  540. 

JNot  a  syllable  of  deposition,  or  trial  of  offences  committed  by 
one  church,  by  any  number  of  churches  convened.  They  never 
carried  it  farther  than  requiring  the  advice  of  mutual  councils. 

"In  these  i)ropositions,"  says  Hubbard,  "  are  summed  up  in 
brief  the  principles  of  the  Congregational  Churches  of  New- 
England,  as  to  Church  government  ;  which  is  the  only  point  wherein 
they  differ  from  the  rest  of  the  reformed  churches,  whether  En- 
glish, Belgick  or  Gallick." 

See  our  argument  on  this  point  in  the  conclusion  of  our  essay. 

In  1680,  a  synud  again  declared,  that  there  was  noihiug  re- 
specting doctrine,  but  what  concerns  worship  and  di,scipline,  that 
caused  their  ancestors  to  remove  to  the  deserts  of  America,  that 
there  they  might  have  liberty  to  practise  accordingly  :  "  and  as 
to  what  concerns  Church  Coverninenl,  they  refer  to  the  [ilatform 
of  discipline  agreed  upon  by  the  messengers  of  their  churches  in 
1648,  solemnly  owned  and  confirmed  in  the  last  synod." 

Hubbard,  p.  623. 

This  was  thirty  two  years  after  the  adoi  tion  of  th;;t  Platform. 
They  had  seen  its  eif^^cts,  were  saiistied  with  it,  and  ratified  it 
solemnly  again.  The  allegations  of  Dr.  Morse,  that  they  were 
soon  discontented  with  it  are  unibuniled.  There  always  have 
been  some  men,  who  wanted  a  stricter  mode  of  discipline,  but 
the  Churches,  in  all  periods,  have  been,  and  we  believe  still 
are,  opposed  to  any  change  of  the  ancient  Platform. 

NOTE  2d. 

The  Reverend  Dr.  Worcester,  of  Salem,  in  his  third  letter  to 
Mr.  C banning,  asserts,  that  Dr.  Cotton  Mather's  ;;rOj;osals  were 
rejected  by  the  Committee,  •' that  not  a  scrip  of  them  was  re- 
tained, and  that  rather  than  to  have  submitted  to  them,  some  of 
the  Committee,  if  not  (he  whole,  woubl  have  resisted  unto  blood." 
It  is  a  little  singular,  that  (troj;os;'ls  of  so  bad  a  cliaracter  should 
have  been  received  with  so  much  respect;  that  they  should  have 
been  introduced  into  the  Panoplist  as  an  "  invaluai  le  relick," 
and  treated  i>y  the  association  with  so  much  attention.  The 
only  object  of  using  Dr.  Cotton  Mather's  manuscri[d  tnnst  have 
been,  to  increase  the  evidence  in  favoin-  of  Consi^cialious  by  the 
weight  of  atdhmiy.  Now  the  uuthority  of  a  mm  capable  of 
proposing   measures,    which  would    call    for    "  resistance   unto 


IV 

blood,"  appears  to  us  to  he  of  little  weight.  The  same  remark 
v»ouI(l  appiy  lo  all  the  nine  inini^ters  who  proposed  the  plan,  and 
to  the  whole  convention  who  adopted  it.  it  is  immaterial  to 
whfit  part  of  the  old  plan  the  objection  notv  lies.  If  any  feature 
was  so  odious  as  to  require  resistance,  it  must  have  been  because 
it  was  rej)uonant  to  our  rights.  Any  men  capable  of  proposing 
ani/  thins:  so  repugnant,  are  not  entitled  to  our  confidence  in 
such  matters.  But  Dr.  Worcester's  is  not  a  fair  representation 
of  the  c;:se.  Our  venerable  fathers  are  very  much  calumniated. 
Their  plan  may  be  found  in  the  Panoplist  of  July,  1815.  We 
assert,  without  fear  of  refutation,  that  the  old  plan  is  less  odious, 
more  liberal,  and  less  calculated  to  destroy  our  liberties,  than  the 
new  one.  There  was  no  power  given  to  the  consociations  in 
the  former,  to  determine  who  should  be  settled  and  deposed.,  an 
authority  expressly  given  in  the  present  plan.  So  far  from  being 
whollij  rejected,  it  is  all  retained  and  enlarged,  except  a  single 
feature  as  to  the  associations,  which  was  its  best  trait. 

The  same  remark  may  l»e  marie  on  the  quotations  from  Cot- 
ton, and  Hooker,  and  ail  the  early  fathers  of  New-England. 
Tiiere  is  not  one  of  tiiem  who  docs  not  distinctly,  in  clear  and 
forcilde  terms,  condemn  the  principles  now  set  up  in  the  present 
plan,  as  auti-chrislian.  When  they  speak  of  consociations,  they 
did  not  contemfdate  standing  judiciary  councils.  They  expli- 
citly repel  ti^e  idea.  We  beg  our  readers  to  consult  the  passage* 
as  we  have  done,  and  judge  between  us. 

But  the  conclusive  answer  to  all  these  cases,  and  one  which 
might  have  superseded  all  others,  is  ;  To  what  does  an  authority 
of  this  sort  amount,  which  appears  to  have  had  no  influence  on 
the  age  in  which  it  was  produced,  nor  in  the  many  generations 
which  have  followed?  From  1646  to  1706,  there  were  some 
very  active  men  who  tried  to  enlarge  the  ecclesiastical  power. 
.At  one  time  they  pressed  a  synod,  as  in  1662,  into  their  ser- 
vice— at  another,  the  Convention.  But  they  never  had  influence 
enough  to  procure  the  adoption  of  their  plan  bj'  a  single  church. 
The  efforts  of  Mr.  Wise,  of  Ij-swich,  defeated  them  with  the  peo- 
ple. They  never  dared  to  pultlish  the  doings  of  the  convention, 
and  we  are  indebted  to  Mr.  Wise  for  a  knowledge  of  them.  A 
whole  century  has  since  elapsed,  and  thej-  are  now  brought  out  of 
their  retirement,  like  the  relicks  of  some  saint,  which  the  Catho- 
licks  often  fancy  emit  a  grateful  odour.  Yet,  even  now,  Dr. 
Worcester  tells  us  that  he  would,  like  Mr.  Mlse,  "  resist  it  unt© 
blood."     So  much  for  the  nudn  authority,  of  Dr.  Morae. 


NOTE  3(1. 

While  Massachusetts,  in  1706,  indignantly  and  wisely  spurned 
the  ecclesiastical  fetters  which  hud  heen  forged  for  her,  Connec- 
ticut proved  more  submissive.  Cotton  Mather's  plan  was  adop- 
ted it  Sayhrook.  But  that  plan,  as  I  have  stated,  did  not,  like 
Morse's,  authorize  consociations  to  interfere  in  the  ordination  of 
ministers.  Not  a  sentence  referred  to  it.  Those  ceremonies 
were  accordingly  conducted,  as  before,  on  the  old  Congregation- 
al plan,  by  calling  in  the  neighbouring  churches.  Matters  went 
on  quietly  in  this  way  for  fifty  years.  Now  mark  the  inevitable 
progress  of  usurpation  !  In  the  year  1758  the  town  of  Walling- 
ford,  in  New-Haven  county,  elected  the  Rev.  James  Dana 
their  minister.  The  neighbouring  churches  were  called  in  to 
ordain  him  as  usual.  But  a  few  very  turbulent  men  in  the  parish 
appealed  to  the  Consociation,  and  charged  Dr.  Dana  with  the 
heresy  of  Arminianism.  It  was  a  new  case.  There  was  no 
preceilent,  and  no  law  for  the  consociation.  But  when  did  men 
ever  refuse  to  exercise  power  when  invited  ?  They  cited  the 
parish  and  Pastor  as  culprits.  They  forbade  ordination.  The 
town  despised  them  as  usurpers,  and  proceeded.  The  consocia- 
tion then  de|)osed  Dr.  Dana  from  the  ministry,  and  excommuni- 
cated the  church.  This  would  have  been  pretty  well  for  Hilde- 
brand  himself.  But  they  distanced  the  Pontiff.  They  declared 
the  venerable  ordaining  council,  who  adhered  to  publick  liberty 
and  law,  disorderly  persons.  All  these  proceedings  Avere  in  op- 
position to  the  Platform  which  gave  them  existence.  The  town 
however  knew  its  rights.  Dr.  Dana  continued  to  act,  and  the 
Consociation  was  ridiculed  and  despised.  But  mark  the  result. 
What  was  impudent  assumption  in  1758,  has  now  become  law 
by  usurpation.  The  Consociation  has  reduced  all  the  people  and 
all  the  churches  of  Connecticut  to  the  worst  of  all  servitudes  ; 
for  a  church  can  neither  ordain  nor  retain  a  beloved  Pastor 
against  the  will  of  these  usurping  consociations.  The  limits  of 
these  notes,  too  extended  already,  will  not  permit  me  to  enlarge 
on  this  case. 

The  curious  may  see  it  ably  displayed  in  sundry  pamphlets 
hy  Jonathan  Todd,  and  William  Hart,  1750,  and  R.  JVolcott, 
1760,  which  may  be  found  in  the  Boston  AthensBum,  and  proba- 
bly at  Cambridge. 

I  must,  however,  cite  one  or  two  passages  from  one  of  them, 
which  having  been  written  nearer  the  age  of  the  attempted  usur- 
pation in  1706,  is  entitled  to  more  credit  than  even  Dr.  Morse, 
"  You,"  says  this  writer,  (addressing  one  of  the  usurping  Priests 
of  that  day,)  "  You  say,  that  the  churches  are  sick  of  their  Plat- 
"  form,  and  that  several  memorials  have  been  presented    to  the 


Vi 

"  General  Court  of  iMassnchusetts,  prayina;  for  a  synod  to  pro- 
*'  mole  tiiat  so  miici;  <ksircd  plan  of  Ct»iis(Jciatio(  s.  «f}uu  had 
"  informed  us,  that  liie  clnirchrs  in  Iha)  Province  h.id  jjresenled 
"  ttipse  rntmorii^is,  it  would  h-ive  been  to  your  purpose  ;  hut  you 
•' .-ire  too  wise  to  tell  us  tvho  presented  (hem.  Bovvever,  Mr. 
*'  Wisf  has  toid  us.  It  was  a  set  of  ambi;  ous  clerLfynaen,  that 
"  had  ccfif-pirdto  brtray  the  liherlies  of  the  churches,  for  wliich 
"  he  calls  ihesn  traitort;."  See  AVoicott,  page  9,  printed  in  Bos- 
ton, 1760. 

So  it  would  seem,  that  am'ntion  and  a  desire  to  betray  the 
liberties  of  (he  churches  are  not  of  recent  growth  only.  The 
same  writer  says.  "  The  Congregational  platform  fdlows  the 
"  chnrchifi  to  choose  a  cc  liici!  known  to  them  to  be  wise  and 
"just.  T/iW,  your  scheme,  denies  and  sul\jects  them  wholly  to 
"  the  Consociation.  Jt  is  certainly  a  greater  privilege  to  ask 
"  council  of  men  wise  and  friendly,  than  to  be  hound  to  men  in 
*'  an  endless  succession  in  some  post,  whom  we  know  not,  and 
"  c«nnot  depend  upon.  Cranmer  and  Ridley,  two  good  bishops, 
"were  succeeded  Isy  Gardiner  and  Bonner,  twomonsurs;  and 
"  what  has  been,  may  be.  There  is  no  dispute,  other  bodies 
"  have  a  right  to  ask  counsel  of  men  best  able  to  direct  them, 
"  and  why  should  not  churches  have  the  same?" 

Thus  we  see,  if  there  were  usurpers  in  1 758,  there  were  also 
chamiaous  for  religious  freedom.  God  grant  the  latter  race  may 
never  be  extinct ! 

NOTE  4th. 

The  Ralio  Discipline  Fratrum  Ncr-Anglonim  is  a  rare  book. 
Whether  the  committee  and  the  reviewer  hoped  to  induce  the 
pul>lick  to  iselieve  that  Dr.  Cotton  Mather,  its  author,  was  in 
f;.vour  of  their  system,  I  cannot  say.  Such  was  the  impression 
mule  on  my  mind  from  their  |)artial  quotations,  as  mutilated  as 
some  of  the  passages  of  scr  pture  have  been  in  some  theological 
wri{ings.  We  aflirm  that  Dr.  Mather  was,  on  the  whole,  well 
satisiied  with  the  state  of  the  church  in  1719,  when  he  wrote 
this  'u)ok.  He  speaks  of  other  people  desiring  a  change,  but  lie 
thv);ight  none  necessary.  The  Committee  of  the  Grand  Associ-* 
ation,  for  examjile,  quote  this  sentence.  "When  councils  are 
called  \-y  litigant  parties  in  churches,  it  had  been  hithriio  in  the 
lil.erty  of  each  [.arty  to  cb.oose  and  call  their  own  coimdls  where 
they  j>!e;;sed,  which  left  room  for  much  partiality  to  operate,  and 
GUP  council  to  succeed  and  oppose  another  with  an  endless  con- 
fusion more  proper  for  Babel  than  a  city  of  God."  So  f-ir  the 
quot  »lioii,  and  one  would  infer  from  it,  that  these  were  his  own 
opinions:  far  from  it — he  merely  states  the  |  leas  of  the  disaf- 
fected and  ambitious.     He  adds,  "  Through  the  blessing  of  God 


VII 

their  Saviour,  the  churches  had  not,  in  fact,  seen  much  of  this 
confusion,  and  it  may  be,  the  pr?<ri,/U  servants  of  God  had  it 
more  in  fear  than  'there  was  any  need  of."  This  certainly 
takes  away  the  authority  of  Mather  to  the  point  of  the  ecils  ex- 
perienced  in  his  day,  which  was  more  than  seventy  years  after 
the  platform  was  adopted.  In  his  judgment,  it  wds  idk  far, 
rather  than  solid  reason,  which  led  to  the  proposed  cousociauuns 
of  which  he  was  then  treating.  He  adds  in  another  pa,<j;e,  tliat 
the  consociation  scheme  succeeded  in  one  state  (l-onnecticut) 
but  failed  in  the  other  New-England  States,  because  "some  cou- 
"  siderable  persons  among  the  ministers  and  brethren  thon'ilit  the 
"  liberties  of  particular  churches  were  in  danger  of  weing  limited 
"  and  infringed  l»y  them."  So  far  he  Is  quoted  i)y  the  committee 
and  the  Panoj^list  reviewer,  but  they  omit  the  conclusion  of  ;he 
same  sentence.  "  Accordingly,  the  churches  go  on  in  !he  old 
*'  method,  of  which  an  account  has  been  given,  and  htanan  pru- 
"  dence  being  oiiiiged  to  stop  where  it  is,  the  spirit  of  our  Saviour 
"  so  descends  with  his  operations,  that  councils  rarely  miss  of 
"  their  desired  eifect." 

This  was  fourteen  years  after  the  scheme  of  tyranny  of  1706 
had  failed.  Dr.  Mather,  in  his  preface,  stales  live  points  in 
which  all  the  New-England  churches  agreed.  1st,  That  the 
people  had  a  right,  when  they  pleased,  to  form  a  church. 
2d.  That  each  church  has  full,  entire,  and  independent  powers 
to  elect  officers,  &c,  3d.  That  Pastors,  so  elected,  have  full  au- 
thority to  administer  sacraments,  Szc.  4th.  That  in  matters  of 
common  concern  only,  which  affect  the  tranquillity  o'l  othfr  church- 
es, they  ought  to  ask  and  pay  great  regard  to  advice.  5th.  That 
the  scriptures  are  a  sufficient  rule  of  f.ith,  worshi;),  and  manners. 
He  adds,  "The  Eleutherians  (or  friends  of  freedom)  will  con- 
sider how  far  any  further  agreement,  (than  in  those  points,)  may- 
be necessary,  and  whether  these  unreasonable  sons  of  Protrustes, 
the  narrow  souled  and  imperious  bigots  for  uniformity,  will  do 
religion  any  real  service  by  the  pressing  of  it."  In  all  this  we 
agree  with  Dr.  Mather. 

It  is  i)retended  both  by  the  Committee  and  Reviewer,  that  de- 
fects in  the  Platform  wee  early  perceived  and  lamented,  and  you 
would  infer,  if  you  did  o  know  these  reverend  combatants,  that 
the  church  was  at  that  early  day  in  a  dicadful  state. 

Dr.  Mather  himself  is  my  authority  against  them.  His  work 
was  l>efore  them,  and  in  face  of  it  they  m;ike  these  assertions. 

In  his  Ratio  Disciplinee,  after  the  jjlatform  had  had  a  trial  of 
aeventj'-five  jtears,  he  says,  "If  the  church  refuse  to  give  to 
any  council  an  account  of  a  matter,  (upon  trial,)  a  thing  that 
perhaps  mver  happened,"  'tc.  Again  ;  "  The  church  persisting 
in  irregularity,  they  run  the  hazard  of  a  proceeding,  which  was 
never  above  once  come   into,  withdrawing  communion."    "  He 


via 

"  thanks  Christ,  that  the  end  is  obtained  without  BUCh  extremi- 
"  lies." 

Where  do  the  comini((ee  procure  their  facts  ?  Surely  Hub- 
bard and  the  author  of  (he  Magnalia,  and  of  the  Ratio  Disciplina^, 
must  have  known  the  disorders  in  the  church,  had  they  existed. 

In  page  170,  Dr.  Mather  asserts,  "that  the  councils  of  New- 
"  England  rarely  meet  with  contradictions  from  the  cliurches 
"  whose  cases  are  submitted."  "  The  New-England  councils 
have  been  so  regularly  composed,  that  there  has  been  little 
occasion  for  the  old  complaint,  omne  concilium  parit  belbtm" 
That  is  to  say,  they  had  done  better  than  the  old  authoritative 
councils. 

"  Tlie  synods  of  New-England  know  no  weapons,"  says  Dr. 
Matlitr,  "  but  those  which  are  spiritual.  They  pretend  to  no 
juridical  authority,  nor  any  signijicancy  but  what  is  merely  in- 
striiclivt  and  suasory." 

He  adrls,  the  churches  of  New-England  cannot  better  express 
themselves  than  in  the  language  of  Festus  Hommius.  "  The 
decrees  of  councils  ought  not  to  be  propounded  unto,  or  obtruded 
on  the  churches  as  Prfetorian  sayings,  but  they  should  be  sent 
to  the  churches,  that  they  may  be  examined  by  them  according 
to  the  word  of  Got),  and  that  if  they  he  found  to  agree  with  it, 
they  may  be  approved.'-  This  submits  the  whole  j)ower  to  the 
churches.  Let  any  one  read  the  report  prefixed  to  this  essay, 
or  the  history  of  the  church  at  AValliugford,  and  then  say,  wheth- 
er the  one  or  the  other  coincide  with  Hommius'  ideas  of  the 
power  of  councils,  w  hich,  Mather  says,  expressed  the  sense  of  our 
New-England  fathers. 


im 


9t^^3^-,:^i^?^Li}^- 


